Read the actual article, that's my whole point.
We're in somewhat of an echo chamber so people just upvote anything that says AI = BAD

I'm against AI for privacy reasons and other reasons, but the environment argument is a joke when you consider how little of an impact it has compared to streaming YouTube etc.

@AnonomousWolf

IMHO -> you wouldn't need to write up such an article if people would think that AI adds an value to their life which is in replacable.

Example:
As of now AI is a big toy which you try to justify the use. A google search / fulltext search is much more efficient than using a AI Summary which you should by definition check after anyway.

You try to justify that we spending more electricity on a technology where we already have working solutions and will need those working solutions in the future too.

PS: I personally think the fundamental flaw in your article is that you define something can get replaced which is often not the case or you don't compare it to the current most used solution. Example -> Most books aren't printed anymore but only digitally published. The books which are printed needs to be printed as reference and to archive it long term or are printed for book lovers. So you can't say there will be 3000W less because it's not printed anymore.

Netflix / Hulu never resorted to this fuckery https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/04/elon-musks-xai-accused-of-lying-to-black-communities-about-harmful-pollution/

Not saying they're good either, but you cannot ignore the blatant environmental disregard of AI companies.

There are many reasons to be Anti-AI, the biggest one for me is Privacy & Manipulation.

But saying AI is brining the planet is BS (when you compared to other basics)

You can easily replace Beef in your diet with foods that aren't as bad for the environment.
It won't taste the same but so what.

You can't cry that nobody needs AI but then in the same breath say that you can't replace beef
Something 100x worse for the environment.

Yes nobody NEEDS AI, just like nobody NEEDS beef, or to take a flight, but it's still a nice to have and useful to a lot of people.

You're out here saying that new technology will safe us, just trust and yet claim I'm having a naive approach.
LLMs are not the magic tool to solve everything you think may they are.

I don't know if it will save us or ruin us, neither I think they can do everything. But even at current point they can do a lot, and there are countless types of work they already are capable of automating significantly (for example, something that took 4 hours now can take 30 minutes, or something that took 10 people now can be done with just 2). And that is definitely something that shouldn't be ignored in environmental concerns. Network effect might actually be a huge win in terms of electricity and emissions. In terms of economy though, people should at least get UBI or something similar for this to not turn into a total economic collapse.

I doubt it's an honest mistake or simple hypocrisy. You can see that AI is both supposed to be useless and see hugely increased usage. Sure, people can be pretty dumb but this is really heavy.

Well, whatever the reason for this may be... You will certainly not reason these accounts out of posting this stuff with numbers.

Considering that several companies are planning on using nuclear power to run ai data services, instead of providing power to cities.

Google turns to nuclear to power AI data centres

How is Amazon Using Nuclear to Power AI & Reach Net Zero?

I'm pro-nuclear power, but why not use those reactors and replace fossil fuel sites instead? We don't ai to consume that much power, which in turn requires morec graphite/uranium/thorium mining, which causes direct environmental damage

Thank you for posting this, I've tried to say the same thing to people quite a few times but to roughly the same reaction as this post has got. Its an entirely emotional reaction, people have convinced themself that AI is bad (arguable) therefore anything bad said about them is true (incorrect).

"ChatGPT could write this post using less energy than your laptop uses over the time you read it."

I think gpt did write the article and it's bragging

It's called opportunity cost.

Sorry, pal, thorn hasn't been a þing since Middle English.

You recognize periods correctly, and þat's what I appreciates about you.

No need to apologize, þough; I'm not trying to bring it back.

The numbers clearly show that discouraging individual people from using chatbots is a pointless distraction for the climate movement

That synopsis would've been better instead of the warning.

elon is using the fresh aquifer drinking water of the memphis sands aquifer to cool grok. he promised to build a wastewater plant for cooling but he hasn’t. shocked-pikachu.gif

he’s also powering it off of lng turbine generators that are flooding south memphis with air pollution.

please do not use grok.