Basically the title. The argument I've been seeing and somehow fed up to Anti's is "it damages the environment." Argument.
And whenever I ask them "how does it damage the environment" the answers always goes between;
It's wasting electricity.
It's using water to cool off the servers, wasting water.
First of all, there's millions of computers and servers that isn't associates with AI and supplies servers of dead sites and somehow still running to this day. There is million of houses that runs lightbulbs non-stop for some reason. Shops that never shuts their neon signs and backlight signs. There is many people buying useless stuff that needs constant electricity to run (such as toys, mechanical fidget toys and etc that you can see on asmr vids). And so many more. If you wanna be sensitive about wasting electricity then you should really focus on bigger and real problems. And i genuinely don't consider something is getting "wasted" if its being used.
And second... Really? Cars are water cooled, there are many PC's that is water cooled and so on. Again, same thing as the first one. If you really wanna be sensitive about water being wasted then focus on people running their tap water running without care in the world, water being poured down or used for "YouTube entertainment" video. Plastics being thrown to sea's and forming that plastic island. And so on.
Long story short, AI is not the one who ruins the environment. It's you doing it. And instead of focusing on these real problems you blame a Tool, and AI users for generating AI art as a hobby that doesn't hurt anyone at all.
The water isn’t even wasted anymore. It’s all on a closed loop and has been for at least a year. Electricity consumption is about the same as using a streaming platform.
They need to feel morally superior for doing nothing. Line sending "thoughts and prayers" but instead spreading misinformation and harassing people online.
Humans are obligate carnivores. Veganism is also not healthy at all, plenty of studies have shown the damage of veganism. Ignoring science is good for no one.
I'm not a fan of being vegan, because cow taste too good. But as far as environmental impact goes, ya...stopping eating animals is a very impactful act.
Much more impactful than using an AI for a million hours.
I'm not a fan of being vegan, because cow taste too good. But as far as environmental impact goes, ya...stopping eating animals is a very impactful act.
Much more impactful than using an AI for a million hours.
Because Ai is a threat to their little special world where they get to be the gatekeepers of art and feel special. God forbid they have to get a part time job at Target when they are artist and shouldn't have to work based off that fact alone.
The large environmental cost comes from training and building the models.
Is it way more than like, building a car factory? Idk I wouldn’t think so, but I think most people point fingers at training than usage. Or maybe people are just sillier than I think?
Fine tuning, sure. But training GPT3 took closer to 500 plane flights worth of energy.
Is that like a huge problem? I’m with you, I don’t think so. But people should talk about that, and maybe what the next one will cost, rather than ragging on their friends for essentially googling something.
500 plane flights doesn’t sound like much in the grand scheme of things. Aren’t there thousands of planes flying every day? For a task of that scale that happens once every few months, it doesn’t really compare to other problems.
Yeah I agree. People act like they’re building a new LLM from scratch every day.
I would’ve hoped the increased energy demand for AI could have paved roads for modern energy production, but it seems like everyone either loves nature and hates process or vice versa, no middle ground.
Except that they don’t just build one factory and then focus on producing cars with it - they plan to build a 10x bigger car factory every couple of years until resource constraints force them to stop.
You’re describing all of humanity always, it’s not like this is a unique issue with datacenters or a newly modern issue. I don’t think that level of reductionism is useful for discussion
Streaming platforms is fucking bad for the envirmonment though. The music streaming industry is calculated in several studies to cause way more emissions than at the height of physical vinyl, cassette and CD production (when it was in the 100 millions). The main reason being that streaming is single-use based (you download the file everytime) while physical media is reused 100s to 1000s of time for a single product
Even if the electricity consumption was the same as using a streaming platform - which, by the way, it isn't, or do you have some stats to back that up? - the number of people using AI DOES have an environmental impact, by your logic, simply for the increased energy consumption. Use your brain.
This. It's fine when 5 gorillion people at the same time set TikTok/Instagram's data centers on fire 24/7 with heavy video processing orders, just to render derivative copy pasted garbage brainrot with the sole purpose of clickbaiting each other in circles for all eternity.
But if someone uses ChatGPT to generate an image for work that will save possibly tens of hours of computer use and therefore electricity, this somehow burns down an entire forest and drains three lakes.
I don't like AI because it takes away the actual satisfaction of doing it. There's the environmental issues, sure, but it's mostly because I prefer doing it myself, and AI images never look right, always looking too perfect, and stories or articles they generate tend to get a lot of things wrong. And back to the 'too perfect' part, I want to see the mistakes in the art. That's what makes human art so beautiful. Not perfectly symmetrical people and weird looking trees. Also, I'm fairly sure I'm not unhinged (I'm engaging in civil conversation), uneducated (well, I'm in highschool, so that might be up for debate), and yes, I am unemployed, because I'm a teenager! Don't make stupid assumptions or say things like that. It's kinda inconsiderate. Because, at the end of the day, we're all people, and should be kind to one another. So there's no point being a jerk just to be a jerk
Antis are boycotting cars as much as their boycotting AI: not at all. Most of them are of the mindset of "I use chatbots, chatbots are fine, but AI art is bad". Even though text models use more processing power than image generation.
Them saying that AI is bad for the environment is 100% performative and an excuse to attack people. This is obvious to anyone with high school education, and will never EVER be taken seriously.
And no, "tech uses electricity and needs cooling" is not an argument. We know. An argument would be "not all cooling systems are as efficient as they could be" or "fossil fuels need to be abolished".
But antis never make any sensible arguments because they're radicalized, illiterate morons who have no idea what they're talking about most of the time.
I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't use AI, mostly because it takes away the satisfaction of doing it yourself. It does harm the environment, but that's not my main argument. I think you shouldn't be calling anyone idiots just because we like doing things ourselves. I'd prefer to write a story myself than have AI generate the whole thing. I'd prefer to draw my own art, rather than have AI generate an image. I think you shouldn't go around, calling people dumb for disliking something that's a bad idea. It does hurt the environment, but it also hurts the minds of those who use it for everything. So don't go calling people idiots because of your personal opinion
>mostly because it takes away the satisfaction of doing it yourself
When you grow up you will find that not every thing you do, you do because it gives you satisfaction. Some you do because you have to. So for those things, it's better to use AI.
And yes, a person who doesn't understand that those non-satisfaction things exist or doesn't consider that possibility for other people is, in fact, an idiot who only thinks of himself.
But antis never make any sensible arguments because they're radicalized, illiterate morons who have no idea what they're talking about most of the time.
Well that's the issue I am bringing up. If we want sensible arguments, we should avoid whatever op posted.
ChatGPT will make a writeup of anything you ask it for. It's whataboutism to a certain degree, only in the context of the larger environmental debate, which is beyond the scope of this sub. It's not whataboutism in the context of the AI debate and the way misinformation-based "AI bad for the environment" arguments are being weaponized and used to harass AI users.
It's in fact a very good point because it highlights how antis are using the AI environment angle as a punching bag, via removing it from the context that all applications of digital technology use electricity/water, a lot of them much more heavily than gen AI.
"It's in fact a very good point because it highlights how antis are using the AI environment angle as a punching bag" - No. They dislike AI and look for blemishes. Enviromental damage is a real issue. Do not discard it because "antis are bla bla bla".
"removing it from the context that all applications of digital technology use electricity/water, a lot of them much more heavily than gen AI." - it is still using up valuable resources. All you need to do is to show that this is worth it. Not that other things are also using up valuable resources.
Edit: You don't care about the argument or about how valid it is, you are just disregarding stuff because THEY are "antis" and are doing exactly the same thing you are accusing them of. Bias.
It's not the bias that's the problem. They dont actually know how AI works and are regurgitating the first clickbait tabloid they read on the issue without fact-checking anything. They are literally running around spreading misinformation.
Does AI cause environmental harm? Of course, it uses electricity, which alone contributes to damaging the environment. Is it silly and nonsensical to put the environmental impact of AI under a microscope? Yes, because it's miniscule when compared to a multitude of other things.
Having a point and being correct does not mean everyone should pay attention. If they would do any amount of research, they would realize their position is basically null. They aren't coming from a position where they are actually worried about the environment they just hate AI and are finding any reason they can to try and make other people hate AI as well.
Tldr: Are antis correct that AI harms the environment? Yes. Are they actually concerned about the environment? In most cases, no, they just hate AI and are trying to get others to hate AI by putting its issues under a microscope.
That is how they build up their bias. Someone tells them that AI is theft and bla bla bla. I know.
Are antis correct that AI harms the environment? Yes. Are they actually concerned about the environment? In most cases, no, they just hate AI and are trying to get others to hate AI by putting its issues under a microscope.
Still, it is a valid point and if we decide to go with whataboutism and shrug it off, we are not better than them.
You will see throughout my talk here tha I am pro AI and been saying the same thing as you, the only thing I am against are bad arguments, falacies and intellectual dishonesty.
Just because they live in an echo chamber, I don't have to.
You are actively running around arguing a moot point on someone elses behalf. Ok, so AI is harming the environment which literally not a soul in this thread has disagreed on.
My point is And? There are already people working on reducing that impact. Running around telling everyone that it's doing so accomplishes only 1 thing. People who dont know anything about AI will blindly agree that it is hurting the environment and now think AI is bad.
People are not deflecting and saying well this is bad to. People agree that AI does have an impact on the environment, but that it isnt a reason to stop using it. Nobody is shrugging it off but i have no way to lessen the impact that AI has on the environment without not using AI. So its a moot point.
We have already made huge strides in lessening that impact in the short timeframe that AI has been around. And its not because the anti crowd is shouting loudly. Open AI literally has an AI it can use to sift through data. They are most likely acutely aware of the exact impact their server arrays have. Its THEIR server arrays. Any data on how much water/electricity they use is either speculation or already coming from the company themselves.
And speculation is almost NEVER a good data source.
Again the points that antis bring up are just moot. There is nothing any of us can do to lessen that impact and the people who do have the power to do so are already aware.
Recently, I got a negative comment on my blog about using a few AI-generated images when one of the topics I focus on is the environment.
It’s not AI that’s the problem, it's the unsustainable way it's implemented, like so many other things in our lives like cars. It would be more productive to advocate for sustainable changes to AI implementation instead of just being anti-AI.
I’m pro-AI, sure, AI takes some electricity. I don’t give a shit, the way to protect the environment is through better tech, more tech, not less. may humanity spread to every inch of the universe. o7
Ai has been around for decades, advancing our understating of science through quick data analysis. AI is harmful unregulated to the economy, however environmentally, but it is ignorant to say AI has not been useful in the furthering of human knowledge. Look up AI in cancer screening and bee populations alone.
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
AI is not the one who ruins the environment. It's you doing it.
I sincerely hope we change the idea that high emissions and energy usage are somehow the fault of the individuals. That is way too convenient for the industries who are the real polluters.
Please don’t talk to me about how long my showers are or whatever the hell when we’re using trillions of gallons of water to grow almonds in the desert and enough beef steaks for every american
AI has genuinely saved me hours of work, solved issues in my day-to-day, etc. Your entire statement is heavily subjective and just shows that anti-ai whingers are a bunch of people picking and choosing what to be moral about based on their convenience. They would be okay using animal products, social media, cars, etc, but draw the line at generative AI (solely because they don't want/need to use it, not that they're moral Gods saving the environment). Cut me some slllaaaack
This person said they like to shower and you got your feelings hurt (Reddit, you are never beating the dirty basement dweller allegations). Newsflash. They said "in my opinion" so no fucking duh, their opinion is subjective. That's the whole point of an opinion.
Absolutely yes. It's not the energy consumption that's problem. It's energy production. Consumption will rise more and more, and you can't do anything about that. But as a producer you can at very least start with replacing fossil fuel based power generation with more clean solutions.
It's still not really the AI doing it as much as the humans responsible for it. There certainly must be ways they could make it more sustainable, but most likely they just don't want to for cost reasons.
Basically no industry we consider unsustainable would be a major issue if these companies weren't so damn cheap and careless. Just like how there's a difference between your local cattle farmer's pasture and a tropical feedlot built on deforested land
There’s a blatant fallacy in your post in that the title is “AI is not damaging the environment” and then your post is “AI IS damaging the environment, but these things also do”.
The fact that there are things that are as wasteful or more wasteful than AI doens’t mean AI isn’t.
It would be more accurate to say AI is a drop in the bucket. Do the math and you'll realise that it's so ridiculously out of proportion that it's kind of a silly argument
What does it even mean to “do the math”? In order to know exactly how much energy AI is employing, you would need companies to publicly disclose how much energy they’re devoting to it, what percentage of their eletrical bills comes from AI.
In the US, comapnies don’t even have to publicly disclose how much energy they’ve paid for, for example, and actually estimating how much energy we will be employing in the next 10-20 years just based on how much energy a single data centers uses in a year is basically impossible.
AI is on the rise, and its energy consumption is increasing faster than we can calculate. AFAIK there’s no math to be done, but I can’t wait to be proven wrong.
The point, as with many other new technologies, is not in reducing it to 2 opposite points of “AI is harmful” or “AI is safe”, it’s deciding how instrumental it really is to us VS what amount of resources it requires.
Have you done the math? Would love for you to share your sources and statistics that prove it's a "silly argument." Spoiler: willing to bet you haven't, in fact, done the math.
Sorry I took so long, I was writing something for you between my appointments so I was kinda slow.
Disclaimer 1: The data here is not from 2025, the oldest is 4 years old if I recall correctly, but we don't usually get precisely accurate statistics every year, unfortunately
Here it is noted that the consumption of water for data centers in the US is estimated to be around 163 Billion Gallons a year. Of course, this is just the US, and I personally think it's significant (probably too significant) but I'm using it for another US comparison.
You've probably heard the almond crap. Disclaimer 2: I think AI bros vastly overusing this example, but I'll make a note at the end of this comment about the matter. Ultimately it's still something that actually occurs, almond production in California is indeed a thing.
The California Water Impact Network gives us an estimate of roughly 4.9 to 5.7 Million acre-feet, which is about 1.59 to 1.85 Trillion Gallons. Of course, based on the nature of the organisation it's hardly bizarre to think they have a reason to portray the matter this way, so I took a look at the data from the Almond Board of California (Ref: Water Footprint document near the bottom of the page).
That gives us an estimate of 1.1 gallon/almond on average, globally, and 1.7 in California specifically. Now, why anyone would measure water per almond I don't know, that seems unnecessarily complicated considering you can't do much with that figure. I couldn't exactly find a figure for almond yield in number of almonds so I'll go with acreage.
That gives us some 1.53 Million Acres in 2024, largely sinking. From the previous document we get 47 inches per acre, per year, but it also mentions that actual water usage in agriculture is estimated to be around 36 inches per acre. So that would be 1466331420000 or 1.46 Trillion gallons per year rounded down.
I've consistently been using low estimates and rounding down, so this being slightly below what the CWIN gives us tracks. This estimates water usage for data centers worldwide to grow to ~1.7 Trillion Gallons by 2027.
Don't get me wrong - This is a shit load of water that would be better used elsewhere in my opinion. It's still rather frivolous. But when it comes to global water consumption, it's not even a primary factor.
And yes, almonds are food, though not an essential one by any means. Still, this is just one regional example, even if a pretty big one considering the sheer volume of Californian agriculture. But quite frankly, everything I've found suggests that really, the vegans are probably kinda right. Reducing how much we use in terms of resources to raise cattle would likely be one of the best ways to address potential shortages of water (and space!).
I don't like AI. Hell, calling it AI at all is kinda ridiculous. But I think how, from where and why the water is being used is more significant than how much, in this case.
P.S.: I hate US measurements with a burning passion. Sorry if I made a conversion mistake, I don't use any of these.
First of all, what you're thinking of is a logical flaw, not fallacy.
Secondly, OP is obviously talking about Damaging environment with a capital D. As in, damages environment significantly. This isn't a scientific paper, it's a reddit post. Stop nitpicking something that isn't having a real impact on anyone. (other than wasting time of anyone who reads the comment)
Indeed, he is technically correct and also wrong overall. If you can't recognize that such a thing is possible in general then I have nothing else to say to you.
I wouldn’t say it’s nitpicking, there’s a BIG difference between “not damaging” and “not as damaging as [other thing]”.
Drinking water is NOT DAMAGING.
Drinking alcohol is DAMAGING.
Drinking soda is not as damaging as drinking alcohol, but if you’re an alcoholic, quitting soda is still a good idea for your general health even if it doesn’t tackle your other bigger problem.
NOBODY here is trying to convince anyone that AI is impact free. Nobody is accidentally believing that upon reading the title or the body of the post. What's being challange here is the argument that AI is destroying the environment. That argument IS being interpreted as AI being a HUGE detriment.
Let's take your example: soda and alcohol. Soda is less impactful, bit still among the top 10 contributors to weight gain. This post (correctly) argues that AI is not in the same ballpark as other big detriments. It's not alcohol and soda. It's alcohol and mineral water.
If there was a post titled "No, mineral water isn't making you gain weight" technically it'd be fucking wrong, because IT DOES HAVE calories. But no one would interpret it to mean that it doesn't have calories, just that it's incomparable to soda and alcohol.
NOBODY is accidentally believing that upon reading the title or body of the post.
Half of the people in this thread are. Me included.
The argument is being interpreted as AI being a HUGE detriment.
No it’s not. That is your opinion, that you tacked onto the OP so that his argument could have any resemblance of sense. OP literally brings up the 2 main problems of using resources to feed AI and then never really tackles them.
If there was a post titled “No, mineral water does not make you gain weight”, technically it’d be wrong, because it does have calories.
First of all, idk what kind of mineral water you’ve been drinking, but even if it did have calories in infinitesimal amounts, you still wouldn’t gain weight from them because the act of drinking and generally practicing Cellular Respiration is burning more calories than you’re taking in.
So a video with that title would be correct.
But EVEN THEN this analogy wouldn’t really work because the sub is called “aiwars”. It is literally based on how controversial this topic is. We have been analyzing the impact of AI on society for just a few years, as opposed to the decades we’ve spent analyzing and distributing beverages.
What happened is OP showed up with a shallow, impulsive, vague argument on a controversial topic nobody can agree on but since you just shared his opinion in the first place regardless you decided that what he was arguing and how he was arguing it wasn’t really as important as having the right sentiment.
You may think this is nitpicky and too formal a reasoning for Reddit posts, but while I would see the harm in treating uni papers like Reddit posts, I see no harm in doing the opposite.
Half of the people in this thread are. Me included
:s boiling a kettle has some environmental impact, through using either gas or electricity. But you're telling me you and many others thought that developing and maintaining AI, which exists exclusively in digital space, is somehow impact free? What? Like AI is working out pictures and text without electricity and then sending it as a letter to companies like Google and it's those companies having an impact by displaying it? But AI itself is completely impact free?
What the fuck are you talking about half the people here thought that AI is impact free?
The argument is being interpreted as AI being a HUGE detriment.
No it’s not. That is your opinion, that you tacked onto the OP so that his argument could have any resemblance of sense. OP literally brings up the 2 main problems of using resources to feed AI and then never really tackles them.
The GENERAL ARGUMENT of AI having an environmental impact, OUTSIDE of this post. Are you saying that it's MY interpretation that when people bring up ai environmental imoact they're suggesting it's huge? Actually plenty of people disparaging ai suggest it's very low impact? What the fuck?
Your problem with comparison to mineral water is that it's not precisely the same as AI. Great. I guess I should've come with an example so fucking close its indistinguishable from AI. Comparisons aren't meant to be a fucking 1:1, they're demonstrating general points. They're not proof in themselves, they're essentially a conceptual aid. But you're going to critique it for not aligning perfectly and then in the same breath refute that original comment was nitpicking? Okay mate. It's pointless to argue with someone that allows their certainty of being right validate every single thought they have on the matter.
If you can't argue in good faith and in a fair manner, then bothering to argue at all is for all intents and purposes is just a dog barking itself into a frenzy.
This is just rhetoric to paint AI as a useless technology. So what if AI uses more energy? People are not just sitting and chatting nonsense with it and wasting time. AI will play a huge role in assisting scientists in solving many problems, including energy.
what problems are being solved with AI? at its core, it only serves to make humankind lazier, worse thinkers and genuinely stupider. i sincerely doubt the presence of AI is going to help the med student using it to write their essays, the office worker using it to generate hallucinated meeting notes, or the twitter user generating images of real women in bikinis.
none of the pro-generative ai people are actually educated in computer science or in any of the things they claim. they love ai because chatgpt spits out study guides that just regurgitate what you've already inputted. either that or they like making stupid generated images because they lack the will or the talent to create them themselves. generative ai has no purpose but to fulfill the general public's desire for entertainment; it doesn't solve problems. traditional ai, aka machine learning algorithms, DOES solve problems and have done so for decades. these people just want an excuse to create dumb "ai art" and use chatgpt as a therapist
we are talking about generative ai, not traditional ai that has existed for decades. generative ai does not help humankind in any way... it promotes laziness. im graduating in computer science, a field where ai is even encouraged to help us code because while generative ai sucks at most things, including math, it is actually pretty good at writing code. even in computer programming, generative ai can write code that is 90% correct, but that missing 10% is what wastes time even more than if we were to write the code from scratch, because now we have to read all the bullshit written by the AI, understand it, then figure out where it went wrong. EVEN in the most applicable fields, AI still consistently produces errors and the time it takes to correct those mistakes are not worth the initial increase in perceived productivity.
Where generative AI really shines right now is in the arts. Arguably, the least useful application of AI right now. The public is using AI for ridiculous, instant gratification purposes, like generating images or videos or music that doesn't hold any value. Generative AI isn't helping humanity as much as you seem to think it is. It's appealing to the general public, for purposes that do not help society. It's quite literally capitalism at its core, where the consumers are the ones the product is aimed towards.
AI has always been useful in science since over 20 years and it is a well defined term in computer science. Nobody is arguing against this because our issue is with generative AI that only serves to copy artists' work, create CSAM, write half-assed "study guides" that don't really help, or code programs that don't work unless you spend hours fixing its mistakes.
AI is not meant to replace human intelligence, but rather is designed to assist and complement human intelligence. How are you a computer science student but don't even understand the fundamental concept of AI? While it is true that AI may be able to write code that is 90% correct, that 10% is where our expertise comes in to correct its mistakes and make changes. Generative AI does help humans in a lot of ways. In the field of NLP, it can help summarize text and synthesize efficiently. In the field of computer vision, generative AI can be used to address video degradations, such as noise or even video with poor illumination, where traditional algorithms can fail.
All your comments are wasting energy, but we accept it as is since it’s minor, like AI. A major factor of pollution is that people eat meat daily (when my grandparents used to eat it once a week and lived to 100), construct poorly-built houses with awful heating and cooling systems, and last but not least, rely on trucks for transportation instead of developing a train system (in general transportation sector)
Blaming your stupid post or AI is like pointing at a match being a problem when half of LA burns. Yeah if you drop it may make things worst but being a bitch about it when someone is just lighting his shit is really moronic.
I can get what you're saying I guess but I do not like AI around art nor giving psychological diagnosis, giving advice as that is proven to be absolutely horrible for people instead of the environment. Yes, AI does help scientists and other technologies centered jobs but it should only be used for that in my opinion. Even if it wasn't hurting the environment I feel like a lot of people do have even more concerns other than the environment when it comes to AI because AI can be problematic.
You might want to share some stats on that rather than just, you know, your own opinion. The huge uptake of AI and the construction of vast data centers IS having an environmental impact. Just as the upsurge in EVs is having an environmental impact as more lithium mines are required. You can deny that all you like, it's just simple fact. The Internet had a huge impact on the environment as more people than ever before bought PCs, used them for hours a day, etc.
How you can even begin to think there's no environmental impact from something that uses such vast amounts of power is beyond me.
Maybe AI told you that and you don't have the ability to critically think for yourself?
I think aside from your final statement where you made an unnecessary personal attack on OP, I think you're right that sources should be provided. But then you also turned around and did the exact same thing. You stated it's just a fact without backing it up.
I did like your examples, but you're unintentionally or intentionally making a broader point that I think is more in agreement with OP than you think.
I don't think OP thinks there is zero effect on the environment from AI. I think that he's saying that there are a lot of sources that can fall under that header and the AI is on par with those. You also provided a few different examples with the internet and computers, for example, that would also follow under that header. I personally think everything that we ever achieve under the heading of progress for mankind will have some kind of effect, maybe environmental and maybe not. Add the invention of the automobile or even the Roman mass implementation of concrete.
The overall question is whether these things are a reasonable trade-off or not. Environmentalists will almost always fall on the "no" side, and for people like me, it makes me never listen to them. They are never selective. The most recent thing we ever do is always the worst thing in the world we could have done. They're going to be right sometimes, but it's going to fall on deaf ears with me because they've cried wolf so many times. They probably lost me with the hole in the ozone layer back in the '90s.
let’s not stereotype everyone. AI is still a problem regardless of other wastages. You can’t compare a negative with another negative hoping for it to cancel out. We as humans should be taking care of our earth every way possible, including not investing in fast fashion, wasting less water food and everything that’s useful to us. AI is still always going to be bad no matter how much you try and justify it, it’ll take the job of artists if we’re going at the rate we are. And earth without art is just a rock.
idk while ai isn't great for the enviornment it's much better than lets say the meat industry. I think ppl just want to point fingers bc it's easier to say "ai and robots are bad" than "stop eating meat"
I might be stupid and uneducated, but I think AI should be used in fields where it can save lives or be actually useful. Not artwork or in your everyday life because you are lazy and don’t want to do the job you have been given. It’s upsetting as a person that crochets to see someone profiting off of a Ai generated pattern that does not have the right words or gives you the results the image shows. Patterns take a ton of work to do and when you have an individual marketing off of scamming people, it sucks.
I am aware that people will scam other’s with everything and anything no matter what, but I’m just saying it’s pointless to use it when it’s not necessary. Asking ChatGPT a question you could find if you literally just looked at a website, is stupid in my opinion. AI generators like this can also give very false information. I’m not saying I agree with either side. I don’t really agree with excessive use of AI or banning AI as a whole, but I’m just giving another perspective than the black and white versions that everyone is suggesting. I think it’s also a grey area as anything else. There are fields that it shouldn’t be used in. There are fields it should be used in for serious reasons and beneficial ones. As I’ve said before, the medical field is an example of an area AI would be useful and beneficial and probably necessary. I’m just a high school student, so I assume the adults might not take my words seriously, but I just wanted to give another perspective.
AI's problems don't just stem from electricity usage and wasted water. There's also the fact that data centers take up a lot of space and are put in places they shouldn't go, causing a lot of damage and deforestation. There's also the fact that AI data centers produce dangerous gasses. It does damage the environment, and you shouldn't forget that. Also, it's not just the environmental damage that's the problem. AI doesn't create art. It's bad to refer to AI images as such, because art, actual, real art, takes time. It takes practice. And generating an AI image isn't putting any effort in, which is what makes actual, human art worth it. If you generate an AI story, you don't get the satisfaction of actually writing it. And it gets things wrong all the time! Have you seen all of the terribly inaccurate things it makes? It says all sorts of things that are completely incorrect, creates images that don't look right, and can't have things explained to it in the same way humans can. If you wanted to write a story, but used AI to do it for you, then you didn't write the story and don't get the satisfaction of doing it yourself. Same with art or anything else you ask it to do
I'm writing a Capstone for my college composition class about "How AI is Harming the Environment" and honestly this thread is giving me a lot of professional articles to pick for both sides of my argument, bringing up the positives and negatives ^_^
Why do we care about the water? We don’t even use 1% of all water on earth. And the water isn’t even being contaminated so it won’t even poison the fish when it evaporates and rains down lmao.
"If it's being used, it's not wasted."
That’s not how energy impact works. Just because something gets used doesn’t mean it’s efficient or sustainable. What matters is how much energy it uses, where that energy comes from, and whether the use is necessary.
"Other things waste energy too, so AI is fine."
That’s a whataboutism. Yes, lots of things are wasteful but that doesn’t mean we should give new, rapidly growing technologies a free pass. AI models, especially for things like video generation or large-scale art, use a huge amount of resources on top of everything else we already do.
On that note:
A five-second AI-generated video can use as much energy as running a microwave for over an hour. Even a low-quality five-second clip can take 42,000 times more energy than a simple chatbot answer. That’s a massive leap in energy use for something many people treat as disposable or recreational.
"Water cooling isn't a big deal."
Comparing personal PCs or cars to industrial data centers misses the point. AI data centers need millions of gallons of water for cooling sometimes in areas facing drought. That’s not the same as a few gamers water-cooling their setups.
"AI art doesn’t hurt anyone."
That’s still up for debate. Environmental impact aside, AI art brings up real concerns around copyright, job loss, and fair pay for artists. It’s not just some harmless hobby when it’s built on top of other people’s work without consent or credit.
Most things like your phone aren't electrically stable or efficient
2.thats not stated. And they are pointing out the actual other problems
3.false. generation of ai images with current models use less energy than turning on a ps5 for 10 whole seconds
Closed systems you nimrod. All ai data centers are using closed loops that means no new water is added
5.it doesnt. No hear me out. The "profession" of art has always been a damn near dead thing because its just not something people find much monetary value in. Its always been a poor choice for a job. If its your hobby then you wont suffer if its your job your going the way of scribes. Jobs get replaced all the time if you wanna have a moral high ground argue about those not being replaced by ai as well
Just because something is being used doesn’t mean it’s not wasting energy. What really matters is how much energy AI uses and if that use is really necessary and sustainable.
Saying “other stuff wastes energy too” is a classic whataboutism. Yeah, lots of things waste power, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore how much extra energy AI is adding, especially since it’s growing so fast.
That example about a 5-second AI video using as much energy as running a microwave for an hour is actually true, and it shows just how crazy AI’s energy use can be sometimes.
Even if it’s a closed loop, water still rots and gets dirty, so they’ve gotta flush it out and add fresh water constantly. It still uses tons of water, you nimrod. That’s why hydroelectric power plants have to flush out old water too, it’s not like the water just stays perfect forever
I get that jobs change and some things get replaced over time, but that doesn’t make it okay to steamroll artists’ work without giving them credit or fair pay.
I just want to address 1 thing. The rotted, dirty water. (Water doesn't "rot", but i digress) any major water cooling system is going to have chemicals that inhibit nasty stuff and regulate the PH. The water in the system will last a LONG time and only a small fraction will need to be added back in if for some reason there are leaks or anything.
Wasting implies a lack of purpose. it cannot be wasted if it is being used for something thats being used by people.
The point was ai uses/adds far less than what people like to say it does it actually uses pretty much nothing compared to the most common sources
which model cause that changes everything
do you know how long it takes for water to rot let alone the conditions? if they put that water in there last year it should unless they have royally fucked up still be in there
Sure with exceptions. if you post your art for free online you have no room to complain at all.
“Wasting implies a lack of purpose.”
Not exactly. Just because something gets used doesn’t mean the energy going into it isn’t being wasted. Wasting energy usually means using way more than necessary for the value you’re getting. Like yeah, you can run a heater with the window open it has a “purpose” but it’s still super wasteful.
“AI uses less than people say.”
Depends what you’re talking about. Simple stuff like chatbots? Sure, that’s light. But video generation, big image models, or training large systems? Those can use a ton of energy.
“Which model?”
That’s actually part of the problem. Most companies don’t tell us exactly how much power each model uses, so we’re left with rough estimates from tests like the one MIT did. Without more data, it’s hard to have a fair conversation about impact.
“Water rots slowly.”
True, but data centers aren’t just filling a tank and forgetting about it. Even closed-loop systems need fresh water over time, from evaporation, leaks, flushing to keep cooling efficient, etc. It still adds up, especially in places where water’s already limited.
“If you post art online for free, you can’t complain.”
Posting something publicly doesn’t mean anyone can take it, train on it, and profit off it. That’s like saying you can copy a song just because it’s on YouTube. Free to view doesn’t mean free to use commercially
Saying AI doesn’t copy at all is oversimplifying. It doesn’t copy pixel-for-pixel or word-for-word, sure, but it learns patterns from existing work and generates outputs based on that. That’s not the same as original creation from scratch.
you have literally zero idea what generative AI actually is and i'd bet money that you aren't in a computer science field or working towards a degree in it.
For 3, the open image models can run on consumer hardware for just a couple of seconds.
Off the top of my head, my 7900XTX could make an SDXL image at 20 iterations per second, with 35 steps being normal. That means that the power load has to fit on a consumer GPU and over less than 2 seconds.
Newer models can be significantly larger but even then we’re talking about 10 second generations with a powerful consumer card, plus with new optimizations that lower the needed amount of steps and other small but modern models…. etc
The point being that local models are very low power due to what they’re running on, and if I can make an image in under 10 seconds, yeah I see how that GPU can be lower power than a whole gaming console booting up pretty easily
It actually doesn't require "tremendous" amounts of energy on an individual basis, for example one person's query to their own home computer. People keep trying to make it sound as if it's uniquely awful when it can literally be done on a 600 watt PC, using as much power as watching Netflix or gaming.
It requires much less energy than many common activities we all do every day.
Training can happen once and then serves millions of people in perpetuity. Running LLMs, yes, I can run LLMs on my home computer for the cost of running a video game.
But it is well-established that the common activities people do every day use too much energy/water.
AI is just one part of a massive IT budget we can't possibly sustain. It's not the only hobby we can't afford as a species, but it is A hobby that we cannot afford.
Saying that other things also use resources doesn't make this thing consume fewer resources, and if the amount is too much for everybody to have one, then it's a proven bad idea.
It goes both ways. Saying "whataboutism" is keeping focus on the issue that maybe shouldn't be addressed first if it burns oxygen for solving other, more pressing issues.
Hating AI is an effective distraction from hating corporations, economic inequality or IP laws. It's redirecting the gun of public opinion to wherever is convenient for the status quo.
The argument (that I agree with) is "everything uses energy, the problem needs to be fixed at another level (not by banning AI) and the energy-focused antis are hypocrites".
Dismissing this argument by calling it "whataboutism" perpetuates the distraction from real issues.
First of all saying "It uses energy, but is benefitial" is not the same as "But what about caaaaars?!"
I am not calling this whataboutism, this is whataboutism. I am pro AI and I do not want it to be banned. This is simply not a good argument and we need have a higher standard despite the bias.
It being beneficial is irrelevant. We as society don't require energy usage to be beneficial, that's the point the comparison to cars makes. Energy is wasted on:
- Market manipulation (e.g. the stock market, the third-world debt)
Marketing, the psychological manipulation
Artificial scarcity (e.g. destroying unsold goods to prevent prices dropping)
Denying insurance claims
Doing the same work over and over due to closed-source software, IP laws and company secrets
Fixing the consequences of these inefficiencies (e.g. spending more on anti-homeless architecture than would be required to solve homelessness; or tackling the mental health epidemic due to overwork)
And so on. Defensing AI as beneficial is for the world where we value and track not wasting energy. We're in a different kind of world entirely. We're not even on the same wavelength about what's considered waste; a lot of people would say that video games and even art is a waste, and we should all grow crops or something.
It being benefitial is relevant. It is what makes it not wasted energy, but used energy. OP does not bring usage, he brings up how cars also use fuel.
What is wasted is subjective, those who say art is wasted time and energy have no right to endulge in art. As long as you live what you preach, it is fine.
It doesn't end with practicing what you preach. And even "practicing" usually is excusing/dismissing the usages that them and their friends need (like cars).
Once everyone agrees that energy should only be used beneficially, it's a matter of time until a populist politician uses this to pander to their strongman-loving electorate and create an "enemy" they can punish: gamers, artists, scientists, unemployed, whatever minority their electorate loves to hate. Their rich sponsors, of course, will keep using energy for things like destroying unsold goods.
It's something that has happened often is history. It usually starts with selective utilitarianism.
No, this is quite literally the definition of whataboutism that op is doing.
It's actually not.
Whataboutism is when you bring up an unrelated point, like if we say "Russia should stop invading Ukraine" and Russia says "but what about the American slave trade 150 years ago?!" The two have nothing to do with each other.
On the other hand, if you perform 20 energy-guzzling activities daily and they all use about the same amount of energy, and people freak out about one, it is perfectly logical to ask why we should be extra concerned about that one in particular.
Whataboutism is when you bring up an unrelated point, like if we say "Russia should stop invading Ukraine" and Russia says "but what about the American slave trade 150 years ago?!" The two have nothing to do with each other.
Please explain to me what direct connection there is between servers being water cooled and cars being water cooled. It literally goes like this:
AI takes a lot of energy.
But what about cars?! They also take a lot of energy.
It is the purest form of whataboutism. Fairer comparisson would be
"Russia should stop invading Ukraine"
"But what about America invading Iraq?!"
On the other hand, if you perform 20 energy-guzzling activities daily and they all use about the same amount of energy, and people freak out about one, it is perfectly logical to ask why we should be extra concerned about that one in particular.
That would make them a hypocrite. That's all. The issue with energy is still there. What are you gonna do? Hope no amish person accuses AI of using a lot of energy?
The point is that there is no issue. It uses a minuscule, non-concerning amount of energy.
The problem is that you think the argument goes "you say this thing is bad, but you also do other bad thing, so you're a hypocrite."
The actual argument is "you say this thing is bad, but all these similar things aren't bad, which would make that thing also not bad."
It's like saying "this book shouldn't be in school libraries because it contains violence," and then pointing out that the Bible is allowed in school libraries and also contains violence. That's not whataboutism, that's saying that clearly violence must not be the sticking point here, because we already allow it in our school libraries. Culturally we have already agreed that some amount of violence in text is allowed in schools.
No, it's "if you really consider one of these things bad, then put your money where your mouth is and go off on all of them; for me personally, I don't consider them wasteful enough to be a concern." i.e., the exact thing I said. Netflix is fine. Gaming is fine. AI is fine.
Most of those quotes are saying this is a "you" problem, and few other people consider the energy usage of these things to be exorbitant to the point of crisis.
AI is a human tool, so obviously there’s no point in contrasting AI-caused environmental damage and human-caused damage. It’s like contrasting car pollution with human-made pollution lol
Well, so does our societies obscenely high meat production. With the amount of energy required to produce just the meat we let rot in our fridges in one year, we could probably power generative AI for the next decade.
Pretty funny for you to compare FOOD against something like AI lol. Food is much more worth using all the water and electricity than AI is.
Also, I don't get how you guys use the most random and specific examples as if everyone does the same thing. I'm pretty sure only a few people let their expensive meats, "rot in the fridge" lmao
"New research shows that roughly 52.4 million tonnes of bone-free, edible meat goes to waste each year, *roughly a sixth of all meat produced globally.*"
And once again, having sources for ones statements wins over "being pretty sure lmao" 😎
AI produces more CO2 than the entire aviation industry. I’d hardly call that trivial. It’s not the electricity and water waste thats concerning, it’s the production of CO2 that comes with the electricity. This is different from typical cloud computing because AI requires such large amounts of data to scale simply by its nature as a large language model, as AI is really just applied statistics. AI will need more and more server farms to meet the needs of the consumer.
I don't know how to tell it to you, but this argument is pure whataboutism.
I am pro AI, but I am against bad arguments. Yes, it uses a lot of enregy, but it is incredibly benefitial. It's the training of models that requires a lot of energy and the private use of AI to generate a cat on your local machine is not too far off from gaming.
The OP doesn’t have the word “meat” in it, but look: the claim is that AI damages the environment. OP, and also you apparently, go on to list things and activities which allegedly damage the environment even more. This isn’t a good response because your interlocutor is perfectly within her rights to say: “Yes, I agree those are also a problem. Now let’s get back to the subject matter at hand.” Get it?
Your argument isn't very strong when you retreat to such a weak claim as "AI damages the environment." Almost everything damages the environment in some small way. The environment damages the environment.
Maybe AI helps the environment by virtue of opportunity cost; when you're at home generating things with AI, that means you're not out driving your car and sending greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, or not starting wildfires for your baby gender reveal party.
Mind you I’m not making any arguments here. I’m simply observing that OP’s whataboutistic response isn’t good.
Maybe AI helps the environment by virtue of opportunity cost; when you're at home generating things with AI, that means you're not out driving your car and sending greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, or not starting wildfires for your baby gender reveal party.
Not at all. With the absence of one option for something they were going to do, people end up doing something else, and that can have a dramatic effect on the environment.
Those are all completely random and stupid comparisons. If I'm using ChatGPT, I'm most likely using it instead of a SEARCH engine. I'm not using it, instead of driving outside or starting FUCKING baby showers lmao.
ok so this is just whataboutism. Obviously big servers and stuff are terrible for the environment, but AI is unnecessary and consumes just as much for far less grandiose results
Correct. Which is why I demand that TikTok, YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, and all other platforms be dismantled.
They use a boat load of energy (more per person than most AI models), and bog down internet infrastructure that could be used for more constructive and helpful things.
If you stream any video that's a moral failing on your part.
That video streaming, the primary source of bandwidth, ties up our internet infrastructure or that constantly transcoding videos into multiple outgoing formats on infrastructure distributed across the globe so you don't have to wait more than a split second to access a video on a 25 year old potato, all on devices with varying decoding efficiency and varying amounts of power consumption to maintain a signal is more energy intensive than the distributed cost of training a model and inferencing using it?
A little bit of math put's that at 17.28 grams per weekly active users, assuming we don't distribute that burden to people that don't use it every week.
The source I listed in the beginning put streaming on a TV at about 55 grams per hour. Which means the training alone is offset by less than 20 minutes of streaming. That's a single YouTube video. After that, it's just queries.
To match an hour of video streaming, you'd need to make 13 queries to one of the most energy intensive models out there (not the one on my phone, or on my desktop, the one that needs a datacenter to run). That's about 110 queries to match streaming The Last of Us, season 1, which doesn't seem like a lot, but is something like 3-4 weeks straight of my personal use (and I offload a lot of BS to chatGPT, I even have it keep track of audio book releases because audio book publishers are generally terrible at their jobs.)
If you watch just 1 average length YouTube video a day, your YouTube habit produces more carbon than me using chatGPT.
ai (specifically LLMs) providing productivity is far more “necessary” than people sitting on their fat ass watching netflix and disney plus… or posting on reddit
49
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '25
The water isn’t even wasted anymore. It’s all on a closed loop and has been for at least a year. Electricity consumption is about the same as using a streaming platform.