<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Carbontracker: Tracking and Predicting the Carbon Footprint of Training Deep Learning Models · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2007.03051/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2007.03051/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Carbontracker: Tracking and Predicting the Carbon Footprint of Training Deep Learning Models — mentioned by humanistbot</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34826285</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2007.03051:34826285</guid><pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2023 21:13:29 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Except the energy costs for these models is such a tiny fraction of crypto. Cambridge researchers estimate annual energy consumption of just bitcoin at 119 terawatt hours (TWh) [1] or 60 megatons of CO2 [2], just below all of Portugal. Meanwhile, even a very critical paper on this from some Scandinavian researchers [3] says GPT-3 cost 190,000 kWh (0.00019 TWh) to train. ChatGPT/GPT-3.5 is allegedly an order of magnitude larger in terms of data and cost to train, so let&amp;#x27;s say it is 0.0019 TWh. When The Register reported on that paper, you can see how they tried as hard as they could to make it…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2007.03051/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CY</category></item></channel></rss>
