• Pennomi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    2 days ago

    Not only are they cheaper than AC, but doing the math shows that they are more energy efficient than a human doing the same work, since humans operate at around 80-100W, 24 hours a day. (Assuming that the output is worth anything, of course.)

    • lime!@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      let’s not use the term “efficiency” with humans making art, please. you’re not helping anyone with that argument, you’re just annoying both sides.

      • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        Humans at least run on renewable energy.

        The computer you draw your art on, not so much. Reject modern art, embrace traditional carvings and cave paintings!

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Oh for sure. But if (for example) an artist can save time by tracing over an SDXL reference image, that is energy-efficient as well as time-efficient, despite most people claiming the contrary.