Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
You have to read about half of the article before it mentions this, which should have been in the first paragraph:

> The researchers found the energy and accuracy disparity by measuring the amount of energy used by three open-source AI models, Alibaba’s Qwen 3, Google’s Gemma 3, and Meta’s Llama 3.1.

I feel like that info is placed appropriately. The abstract mentions that energy disparity persists across models, the rest follows the standard Intro -> Related Work -> Experiments structure

Edit: sorry, i went straight to the paper. I agree, the article itself (and the headline) are bad (as they tend to be on this topic)

Is the publishing cycle this long? Those models were relevant 18 months ago

Working out the kinks in your methodology obviously takes some time. But is there any structural reason not to rerun the benchmarks on current models in the final stages before submission? Assuming the results generalize to those newer models

loading story #50500020
loading story #50497220
How would one evaluate the energy consumption of models accessible only through Anthropic or OAI APIs? You can't fire them up on your own computers and measure power consumption.
The Anthropic and OAI APIs report token usage (input, output, and in some cases reasoning/thinking). The input tokens consist of the system prompt, the user input/messages, and any other context data.

Given the same model the only variable is the token count. The more tokens, the more passes through the LLM (to generate the next output token), the more energy used.

It's well known that non-English text consumes more tokens [1], [2] and thus more energy. This is due to two factors:

1. Latin script languages having different character pairings to English and modified characters, including language features like modifying verbs for person/tense/etc. (e.g. Spanish);

2. Non-Latin scripts that take more bytes to represent in UTF-8 and (esp. for ideographic and syllabic languages like Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) have lower common character pair sequences, meaning shorter tokens for those scripts and thus more tokens for a given text sequence.

[1] https://ikriv.com/blog/?p=5322 "LLM tokens and foreign languages" (5 Aug 2025)

[2] https://medium.com/@programmerraja/how-your-llm-costs-5x-mor...

loading story #50498779
loading story #50498538
Look at the token usage counts.
It's explained too..