Yes, of course but not per unit of output. It will become more efficient and more widespread. I don't really see a long-term problem in that. Maybe a short-term problem yes
Assuming it doesnt crash because people realize its not a good tool (which I'm hoping for), this still means its overall energy consumption will rise. Thats Jevons paradox and this scenario fits it quite well
You're living under a rock if you think this is a fad. You're seeing ai used all around you constantly. Autocorrect on your phone keyboard, suggestions in Google News, YouTube, etc, translation, speech to text captioning, voice navigation, etc. These are all useful applications in the consumer space, not to mention all of the industrial and medical applications such as helping diagnose health issues, fraud/anomaly detection, etc. I would say there is a bit of stick on the wall happening where everyone tries to apply it everywhere and it's generally not always helpful. I consider that more of an evolutionary necessity. Hopefully we will learn where it works best and hone out usage in those applications.
None of those things are what the comment was talking about. LLMs may make those things work better but they all existed previously.
LLMs are being incorporated into all those tools they mentioned. The only reason you'll see LLMs disappear is if they get replaced with something more powerful, we're not going back to the world before LLMs
Like when we put lead in gas ? Or freon in fridges ? "it's just a lil bit what could it do"
A 10x improvement in efficiency and a 1000x increase in utilization would still mean 100x electricity usage. Is this a long term problem? Maybe!
There is a risk that if AI works well enough, there will always be profit in using even more AI (in particular if you can task AI itself to use AI recursively, meaning that AI usage won’t be limited by available human time), in order to have an edge over the competition. In that case, AI usage could gobble up all available energy regardless of AI efficiency.