/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

days · browse · Enter similar · o open

Sam Altman claims an “average” ChatGPT query uses ~0.34 watt-hours, or 1+ second of oven use, and ~0.000085 gallons of water, or “one fifteenth of a teaspoon”

Jay Peters / The Verge :

The Verge Jay Peters

Context & Ripple Effects

OpenAI's compute costs were characterized as "eye-watering" when ChatGPT first scaled, making per-query resource use a consequential operating metric rather than a purely environmental one. More recent coverage argued that daily ChatGPT use remains a small share of an individual's electricity footprint, while water estimates have varied sharply by model and data-center location, including location-specific GPT-4 water estimates.

Altman's figure adds a company-supplied benchmark to a debate previously driven largely by external estimates. Its usefulness depends on what OpenAI includes in an "average" query and how that average maps to different model workloads.

First-order effects

  • OpenAI now has a public, simple per-query energy and water claim that users, customers, and critics can use when discussing ChatGPT's footprint.
  • The claim shifts immediate scrutiny toward methodology: query mix, model choice, data-center operations, and whether the reported average is comparable with prior estimates.

Second-order effects

  • Rival AI providers face more pressure to publish similarly legible usage metrics; Google has separately reported a median Gemini text-prompt energy figure, though differently defined measurements are not automatically comparable.
  • Enterprise buyers and sustainability teams gain a starting point for evaluating AI workloads, but may demand workload-specific disclosures rather than a single consumer-query average.

Third-order effects

  • If major model providers standardize transparent, comparable inference reporting, environmental performance could become a competitive dimension alongside model quality, price, and latency.
  • The pattern points toward AI resource reporting moving from broad company-level disclosures to product-level metrics, although common definitions and independent verification would determine whether those figures can support meaningful comparisons.

The trend: AI providers are increasingly translating inference infrastructure costs into per-prompt environmental metrics as assistants become a more routine computing interface.

Discussion

  • @caseynewton Casey Newton on bluesky
    Looking forward to a calm and respectful discussion of these stats here on bsky.app [embedded post]
  • @emollick Ethan Mollick on x
    Also, model training is one time & we don't know if it was included in the estimates. GPT-4 likely used 50+ GW to train, enough to power over 5500 homes for a year or the energy of something like 75 transaltlantic jet flights. (Although a small amount averaged across all queries)
  • @minimaxir Max Woolf on x
    Sam Altman just gave ChatGPT's cost-per-query of 0.34 watt-hours: the first time a number has been given in terms of recent LLM power usage and is obviously much lower than the 3 watts still cited by detractors, but there's a lot of asterisks. [image]
  • @emollick Ethan Mollick on x
    Altman essay: https://blog.samaltman.com/... Google post: https://googleblog.blogspot.com/ ... ChatGPT numbers are credible, a direct measure of Llama 3.1 405B estimated around 3x as much energy use per query, and there are likely many efficiencies in the server-side approach to …
  • @emollick Ethan Mollick on x
    This was less than almost every estimate I have seem: according to the latest Sam Altman post, the average ChatGPT query uses about the same amount of power as the average Google search in 2009 (the last time they released a per-search number)... 0.0003 kWh [image]
  • @minimaxir Max Woolf on x
    (is watt-hours the right unit of measurement here?) https://blog.samaltman.com/...
  • @thetranscript_ @thetranscript_ on x
    Sam Altman: “As datacenter production gets automated, the cost of intelligence should eventually converge to near the cost of electricity. (People are often curious about how much energy a ChatGPT query uses; the average query uses about 0.34 watt-hours” [image]
  • r/artificial r on reddit
    Sam Altman claims an average ChatGPT query uses ‘roughly one fifteenth of a teaspoon’ of water