From the obvious to the outrageous, the list of concerns about artificial intelligence has grown long since late 2022, when ChatGPT took the title of “technology of the future” from the metaverse or NFTs.<\/p>\n
I’ve been thinking a lot about one of these concerns: the excessive use of energy and water needed to satisfy the insatiable thirst of big techs and startups for more money.<\/p>\n
What is the environmental cost of outsourcing thankless tasks to ChatGPT, like writing reports that no one reads or generating a happy birthday image for that aunt you haven’t spoken to in six years, in the family group chat?<\/p>\n
Perhaps the most popular metric for this dilemma of the 2020s is the 500 ml water bottle for every ~50 questions to ChatGPT<\/a>.<\/p>\n Is that a lot? A little? Is the trade-off worth it? As with everything in life, the answer is: \u201cit depends.\u201d<\/p>\n Any data point, when analyzed in isolation, sounds absurd. Context is necessary. And the more context, the better. In this case, we are particularly interested in comparisons to other everyday activities we do online, which also rely on large data centers, and the cost-benefit of adding fuel (even just a few drops) to global warming in exchange for artificial verbosity and cheesy images.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n There are estimates that the AI race will double the tech sector’s share of global energy consumption by 2026. Which\u2026 is quite a lot, considering that the sector consumed between 1\u20131.3% of the total back in 2022.<\/p>\n What can you or I do if we find this increase wasteful? To be honest, I think nothing. For us mere mortals, AI is inevitable. Like it or not, CEOs of major companies \u2014 who have the final say on the apps and websites we use daily, and how we use them \u2014 are convinced that this technology is revolutionary.<\/p>\n Not just convinced: they are all in, hopeful that, like any truly revolutionary technology, AI holds substantial rewards for those who master it, even if it incurs \u201cexternalities,\u201d including frying the planet.<\/p>\n The inevitability is already being felt. Google and Microsoft have integrated generative AI into their productivity apps. Overnight, millions of people and businesses relying on Microsoft 365 (formerly Office)<\/a> and Google Workspace<\/a> gained AI assistants they didn\u2019t ask for, which, of course, came with a considerable price increase.<\/p>\n Samsung has given up on improving its smartphones \u2014 even slightly downgrading<\/a> the Galaxy S25 Ultra \u2014 to focus its efforts on at least questionable AI features as highlights, in a bold attempt to convince people to upgrade their devices.<\/p>\n On the other side of the mobile duopoly, Apple, which refused to say \u201cAI\u201d and called it \u201cmachine learning\u201d until 2022 (before ChatGPT), has embraced AI, coined an infamous pun to refer to its take on it (\u201cApple Intelligence\u201d), and decided to enable it by default in iOS 18.3<\/a>.<\/p>\n This is the same AI that, until this update, was generating fake news<\/a> by \u201csummarizing\u201d notifications from news apps. Apple\u2019s solution? Remove news apps from the AI summary. Apple still sees you as a selfish asshole<\/a>; that hasn\u2019t changed.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Given that it’s inevitable, does it make sense to oppose the use of AI? Or rather: is it possible to stop using AI-based resources, to vote with our wallets?<\/p>\n For the more obvious cases, perhaps yes, and it might even be desirable since they can be tacky and\/or nearly useless. An AI startup backed by billions from Amazon and Google, Anthropic agrees<\/a>.<\/p>\n The problem is that, in a broader context, we are all already using \u201cAI\u201d to a large extent. From searching for images in Apple\/Google Photos to more innocuous routines like spell check on our phones or automatic translations, everything relies on concepts and techniques that, depending on the definition (if broader), fall under the umbrella of artificial intelligence. And they offer more tangible or justifiable benefits than just removing ugly people from the background of a photo.<\/p>\n And it\u2019s this perception that leads me to a fatigue that precedes the discussion itself, because it feels futile. The infamous 500 ml water bottle that ChatGPT consumes is the new \u201cturn off the lights to save energy,\u201d the \u201ctake 30-second showers to avoid running out of water in the world,\u201d meaning it doesn\u2019t really matter whether we use ChatGPT or not because:<\/p>\n One thing is a handful of startups selling empty promises backed by almost-cartoonish villains like Marc Andreessen, as we saw during the NFT craze. Another is the largest companies and investment funds on the planet pouring hundreds of billions of dollars (literally) into a technology they believe to be revolutionary.<\/p>\n When it reaches this stage, there are only two possible outcomes: a massive return accompanied by a true revolution, or widespread failure, regardless of who it affects. You can probably guess my hunch about which outcome we will see.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n It\u2019s a bit frustrating when the responses to a dilemma echo the broad and, at this point, tired phrases like \u201cit\u2019s capitalism\u201d or \u201cthese are systemic problems, we can\u2019t do anything as individuals.\u201d Even if that\u2019s the case. So, I want to wrap up by providing a bit more context, on an individual level, to help ease any guilt you might feel if you want to use ChatGPT for any tedious tasks you\u2019re asked to do at work or, let\u2019s be realistic, to experiment with the available tools \u2014 who knows, you might find something useful?<\/p>\n You know those video calls, Zoom and FaceTime, that saved some semblance of sanity during the pandemic and normalized video chatting? They are among the most energy-consuming digital activities. And it doesn\u2019t have to be that way if we\u2019re willing to turn off the video and just use audio, like we did before the pandemic. This simple gesture saves 96% of the carbon emissions<\/a> from a video call \u2014 or, in this case, a call.<\/p>\n Before you delete the Zoom app from your phone, consider that, even if you don\u2019t turn off the video for any reason, a video call is obviously much more economical and energy-efficient than flying and then taking an Uber or renting a car to have a face-to-face conversation with someone on the other side of the country.<\/p>\n You know what consumes way more energy than hundreds or thousands of silly responses and bad code generated by ChatGPT? Video streaming<\/a>. Are we all going to cancel Netflix and YouTube and go back to the 1990s internet, which was all text-based, and to DVD rental stores? Yeah, I, along with Blockbuster, don\u2019t think so.<\/p>\n For my part, I believe that directing (our!) energy toward actors, instances, and problems with a higher chance of yielding greater (systemic!) returns is a more promising path. How? I don\u2019t know. I leave that question (and my support) to activists, scientists, politicians committed to the environment, and anyone else who knows better to help. I\u2019m just an average guy writing on a blog that almost no one reads.<\/p>\n\n