The brain is certainly vastly more energy efficient at inference than LLMs on GPUs. But it looks like you're trying to make a different argument, that an LLM can spend less energy than a human to complete a given task. Unfortunately, you have not made that argument and I won't be reading unverified LLM output that might contain hallucinated steps or claims.

> V3/R1 scale models as a baseline, one can produce 720,000 tokens

On what hardware? At how many tokens per second? But most importantly, at what quality? I can use a PRNG to generate 7 billion tokens at a fraction of the energy use of an LLM but those tokens are not going to be particularly interesting. Simply counting how many tokens can be generated in a given time frame is still not a like for like comparison. To be complete, the cost required to match human level quality, if possible, also needs accounting for.

> Deeply thinking humans expend up to a a third of their total energy on the brain

Where did you get this from? A 70B LLM? It's wrong or at best, does not make sense. The brain barely spends any more energy above its baseline when thinking hard (often not much more than 5%). This is because most of its energy use is spent on things like up-keep and maintaining resting membrane potential. Ongoing "Background activity" like the DMN also means the brain is always actively computing something interesting.

> > V3/R1 scale models as a baseline, one can produce 720,000 tokens On what hardware? At how many tokens per second? But most importantly, at what quality?

The hardware is the GB200 NVL72 by NVidia. This is for the class of 671B DeepSeek models, eg R1-0528 or V3, with their full accuracy setup (ie reproducing the quality of the reported DeepSeek benchmarks). Here is the writeup (by humans; the second figure shows the tokens per second per GPU as a function of the batch size, which emphasizes the advantages of centralized decoding, compared to current hacks at home): https://lmsys.org/blog/2025-06-16-gb200-part-1/

And here are the instructions to replicate the particular benchmark: https://github.com/sgl-project/sglang/issues/7227

The LLM text I linked in my original answer carries out the math using the energy consumption of the NVidia hardware setup (120kW) and rather simple arithmetic, which you can reproduce.

I agree with you that quality is the most important question, for similar reasons.

I don't think that current models are at expert level, but they do seem to be reliably good enough to be useful and pass standardised tests and be generally quite solidly in the "good enough you have to pay close attention for a while before you notice the stupid mistake" area that makes them very irritating for anyone running job interviews or publishing books etc.

And worse, I also think the numbers you're replying to are, at best, off by a few decimal places.

If I take the 0.36 bananas (which was already suspicious) and USD 0.1 / kWh, I get 0.004 USD. If I scale that up to by 1/0.72 to get a megatoken, that's still only 5/9ths of a cent.

If I make the plausible but not necessarily correct assumption that OpenAI's API prices reflect the cost of electricity, none of their models are even remotely that cheap. It's close enough to the cost of their text-embedding-3-small (per megatoken) to be within the fudge-factor of my assumption about how much of their prices are electricity costs, but text-embedding are much much weaker than transformer models, to the point they're not worth considering in the same discussion unless you're making an academic point.

> It's wrong or at best, does not make sense. The brain barely spends any more energy above its baseline when thinking hard (often not much more than 5%).

Indeed.

Now I'm wondering: how much power does the human brain use during an epileptic fit? That seems like it could plausibly be 70% of calories for a the few seconds of the seizure? But I've only got GCSE grade C in biology, so even with what I picked up the subsequent 25 years of general geeking, my idea of "plausible" is very weak.