I'm not interested in continuing the conversation with you, if you simply dismiss everything in a very unproductive way. The other guy presented an article that was biased against AI, but, for the sake of argument, I still took the joules as the energy cost, applied them to my generation process and provided AAA gaming and the BigMac as a scale comparison to put things into perspective. I did this because people often do not know how much "1188 Joules" actually are.
1188 Joules sound like much, but if you have a 1m^2 solar power, it produces somewhere between 500000 and 750000 Joules in an hour on a sunny day in Germany. This puts things into perspective and helps people understand that image generation isn't "destroying the planet" or (as the other guy said) "ai is literally killing our planet. it takes 10x more power than anything you can conceive of."
You can't even acknowledge that my image generation cost (1188 Joules per pic) is tiny compared to gaming or a single BigMac (20 million Joules) and so you try to dismiss my point by claiming that somehow the energy costs are incomparable and saying "maybe people do not game at all?". We both know that you understand how devastating this point is to the guy's "ai is literally killing our planet" argumentation. You know. I know. So ask yourself why you do this...