> Energy usage doesn't have to correspond to environmental damage much at all. Come on now, green energy is less bad than fossil fuels, often by a lot, but tha

> Energy usage doesn't have to correspond to environmental damage much at all. Come on now, green energy is less bad than fossil fuels, often by a lot, but that's very different from having no impact. The mining to support solar panels does real measurable harm, as does disposing of old ones. There are similar environmental costs to every green energy source. I think nuclear is one of the least bad options and we should have been making more of it for decades, but it's hardly devoid of externalities. That's not to say we need to consume less energy, just that we should be clear eyed about the tradeoffs. So far there's very little evidence of a huge productivity boost from generative AI, especially relative to the immense energy consumption. Things are changing quickly, maybe that will improve in the near future. But if utility levels off where it is now and energy consumption increases another one or two orders of magnitude, and we're still keeping coal plants alive to support it, I'm going to be pretty skeptical it's worth the cost.