> Moreover, the organizations best placed to produce a bill — companies like Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI — simply aren’t sharing the relevant information.
To me this shows both unfamiliarity with large corporate structures and unfamiliarity with AI research. The former because, if you want an exact accounting at a company where there are several teams running dozens or hundreds of models, it becomes someone's job essentially to compile this information because it takes a lot of work. So, you are surprised that a corporation doesn't outlay $200k/year or more getting these figures to decorate your article with? The corporations do know, on a month-to-month basis, what they're spending on this stuff - since they settle the invoices. But doing the work to get these figures into a simple, digestible form is a lot of effort, and I think that quite frankly, that effort should fall on the journalist, since it's the journalist who gets the benefit from having those numbers...
As to unfamiliarity with AI research, many papers I have been reading lately are very interested in measuring and minimizing the compute cost of models, and they often compare different methods and are often extremely precise about their training process and equipment. I feel like this article wants to sell the story that these faceless corpos don't care about energy consumption, but the researchers definitely do. Granted certain specific products / models such as ChatGPT 4 do not disclose exactly their process, but I feel like it would not be difficult to come up with a good estimate using similar models (mostly documented right out in the open in scientific papers).
Tracking the energy consumption of AI is an important and emerging issue, but this article feels too partisan to be useful.