Context. The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has led to their widespread adoption in development pipelines. Goal. We empirically assess the energy efficiency of Python code generated by LLMs against human-written code and code developed by a Green software expert. Method. We test 363 solutions to 9 coding problems from the EvoEval benchmark using 6 widespread LLMs with 4 prompting techniques, and comparing them to human-developed solutions. Energy consumption is measured on three different hardware platforms: a server, a PC, and a Raspberry Pi for a total of ~881h (36.7 days). Results. Human solutions are 16% more energy-efficient on the server and 3% on the Raspberry Pi, while LLMs outperform human developers by 25% on the PC. Prompting does not consistently lead to energy savings, where the most energy-efficient prompts vary by hardware platform. The code developed by a Green software expert is consistently more energy-efficient by at least 17% to 30% against all LLMs on all hardware platforms. Conclusions. Even though LLMs exhibit relatively good code generation capabilities, no LLM-generated code was more energy-efficient than that of an experienced Green software developer, suggesting that as of today there is still a great need of human expertise for developing energy-efficient Python code.

There is a strong belief on the internet that AI will solve basically all of future society's problems, if we just give it enough time. Christian Katzenbach took a close look at this myth to determine whether there is truth to it. In time for this year's Internet Governance Forum (IGF), Matthias Kettemann (HIIG) and Stephan Dreyer (Leibniz Insitut für Medienforschung Hans-Bredow-Institut (HBI)) will be publishing a volume called "Busted! As an exclusive sneak peek, we are publishing an assortment of these myths here on our blog – some of those have been busted by HIIGs own researchers and associates. The entire volume will be accessible soon at internetmyths.eu.