| You are ignoring the energy cost to train models. AI is not just the surface layer of end user messages. AI is also used far more often than TVs - if every app and device starts using it, that is constant AI messaging going on. So TVs aren't even the correct comparison, especially if AI starts to be used more to create content - there is then an AI energy cost to just watching that content. Even putting that aside, what screen are you looking at when making these queries to AI? Maybe a phone... but if not, you are burning the energy from both the large screen and the AI. Even putting aside the poor comparison that TVs are, with today's energy production, the environmental damage from AI is unquestionable. Rather than asking whether or not that is OK, there are really 2 questions to answer: 1) What are the benefits of AI, specifically? Yeah, vague things like "research faster" is a benefit, but you need to quantify it if you are going to make comparisons. And most AI usage is frivolous. Some AI usage is downright damaging, especially in creative industries. All of that needs to be balanced. 2) Can we change energy production to get off of fossil fuels? If we can do that, the damage of burning more energy decreases greatly. My takeaways from this entire line of questioning is that we need to balance AI usage with renewable energy adoption, while keeping a strong eye on what we actually do with AI. |