The best we've managed to push back with is that the environmental cost of a human worker, like their commute or office space, would be there anyway. But that feels like a cop-out; it basically means no technology can ever really improve productivity in an environmentally beneficial way, and we don't apply that logic to anything else.
So on one side: the environmental cost of the LLMs themselves (as indicated in the subscription price). On the significantly higher cost of a human engineer. Am I missing something here?
incomingpain•3h ago
They produce a tremendous amount of heat in usage and at power generation. In most circumstances are powered by fossil fuels. I cant see how this would ever be justified.
>Should it earn all the benefits that come with ESG status?
Not a chance. AI is literally an antithesis to climate folks and ESG.
The ESG/climate folks should be opposing AI as much as possible.