7 ms·

People in the comments seem confused about this with statements like “greenest AI is no AI” style comments. And well, obviously that’s true but it’s an apples t

by Insanity 11mo ago

People in the comments seem confused about this with statements like “greenest AI is no AI” style comments. And well, obviously that’s true but it’s an apples to pears comparison. Clearly Ecosia is pushing for “people want AI” _and_ we want to make it more ecofriendly. Taking away features from users altogether is not the right answer. It’s like saying “cheapest car is no car”. It doesn’t solve the fundamental problem of “wanting a car”.

oytis 11mo ago
We don't have a problem of wanting AI though
- doublerabbit 11mo ago
  We may when AI wants AI...
nemomarx 11mo ago
Isn't this why transit advocates try to reduce the need for owning a car though? I'm thinking a really good search engine would not make you reach for ai as often and so could be eco friendly that way
- tybit 11mo ago
  Yes, the greenest browser is one that doesn’t use AI. They aren’t claiming they’ve built that though, just the greenest AI.
  - chongli 11mo ago
    I don't use AI though. Are they going to put automatic AI responses on the SERP? That's less green than simply not having AI on the SERP. Giving me something I do not want is wasteful by definition.
  - simianwords 11mo ago
    I disagree. Without AI I might take 15 min to search for something in google that would have taken me a single prompt in ChatGPT. The energy used by my screen in those 15 minutes would be higher than the energy taken by that prompt.
- lukeschlather 11mo ago
  There are fundamental reasons public transit is always more efficient than private cars. There's no fundamental reason a really good search engine is more efficient than an LLM or any other kind of AI.
  - dented42 11mo ago
    The sheer amount of linear algebra number crunching vs some database lookups is monumental. I don’t see how an LLM could ever be as efficient as a search engine.
    - femiagbabiaka 11mo ago
      Search engines aren't just some database lookups, is the thing. There's actually quite a bit of linear alegbra involved in both, for page ranking especially Anyways these sorts of comparisons make no sense to begin with, and quite obviously at the moment the worst actors cough xAI cough who are deploying massively polluting generators into residential neighborhoods are much worse than, say, Google Search
      - Insanity 11mo ago
        When I took linear algebra at uni in 2012, one of the examples to show practical applications in our text book was the PageRank algorithm!
  - mplewis 11mo ago
    Maybe because we all know that working search is better than an LLM hands down? What are you talking about? The only reason people go to LLMs instead of Google is because Google Search has been destroyed by Sundar Pichai.
    - simianwords 11mo ago
      This has to be satire. LLMs are a monumental jump on search engines. Imagine a hypothetical search competition and you are given Google and I am given ChatGPT. I’ll win every single time.
JimDabell 11mo ago
> People in the comments seem confused about this with statements like “greenest AI is no AI” style comments. And well, obviously that’s true It’s not true. AI isn’t especially environmentally unfriendly, which means that if you’re using AI then whatever activity you would otherwise be doing stands a good chance of being more environmentally unfriendly. For instance, a ChatGPT prompt uses about as much energy as watching 5–10 seconds of Netflix. So AI is greener than no AI in the cases where it displaces other, less green activities. And when you have the opportunity to use human labour or AI, AI is almost certainly the greener option as well. For instance, the carbon emissions of writing and illustrating are far lower for AI than for humans: > Our findings reveal that AI systems emit between 130 and 1500 times less CO2e per page of text generated compared to human writers, while AI illustration systems emit between 310 and 2900 times less CO2e per image than their human counterparts. — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x The AI water issue is fake: https://andymasley.substack.com/p/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake https://andymasley.substack.com/p/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment: https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-cheat-sheet-for-conversations-about https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-cheat-sheet-for-conversa... A ChatGPT prompt uses about as much energy as watching 5–10 seconds of Netflix: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Nov/29/chatgpt-netflix/ https://simonwillison.net/2025/Nov/29/chatgpt-netflix/
- pretendgeneer 11mo ago
  > And when you have the opportunity to use human labour or AI, AI is almost certainly the greener option as well. For instance, the carbon emissions of writing and illustrating are far lower for AI than for humans: Do you plan on killing that person to stop their emissions? If you don't use the AI program the emissions don't happen, if you don't hire a person for a job, they still use the carbon resources. So the comparison isn't 1000kg Co2 for a human vs 1kg Co2 for an LLM. It's 1000kg Co2 for a human vs 1001kg Co2 for an LLM.
  - JimDabell 11mo ago
    Please read the source I linked to; your reply doesn’t make any sense in that context.
d--b 11mo ago
Yeah, but people here also know that AI that doesn’t use vast amounts of energy is generally returning mediocre results. And mediocre results are not useful at all. So whatever you save on energy doesn’t really matter if the utility is going to zero. Your comparison to cars is good. A cheap car will be slower and less comfortable but will get you where you want to be ultimately. That’s the core value of the car. A bad LLM may not get you anywhere. It’s more like having a cheap powerdrill that can drill through plaster but not through concrete, in the end you still want the expensive drill…
monegator 11mo ago
I want a car because i need a car, even tough i may agree that is environmentally unfrinedly. Unless we have a different mean of transport that gives me the same amount of freedom, i want a car. I don't want LLMs because i don't need them, yet they are being shoved down my throat.

oytis 11mo ago

We don't have a problem of wanting AI though

doublerabbit 11mo ago
We may when AI wants AI...

nemomarx 11mo ago

Isn't this why transit advocates try to reduce the need for owning a car though? I'm thinking a really good search engine would not make you reach for ai as often and so could be eco friendly that way

tybit 11mo ago
Yes, the greenest browser is one that doesn’t use AI. They aren’t claiming they’ve built that though, just the greenest AI.
- chongli 11mo ago
  I don't use AI though. Are they going to put automatic AI responses on the SERP? That's less green than simply not having AI on the SERP. Giving me something I do not want is wasteful by definition.
- simianwords 11mo ago
  I disagree. Without AI I might take 15 min to search for something in google that would have taken me a single prompt in ChatGPT. The energy used by my screen in those 15 minutes would be higher than the energy taken by that prompt.
lukeschlather 11mo ago
There are fundamental reasons public transit is always more efficient than private cars. There's no fundamental reason a really good search engine is more efficient than an LLM or any other kind of AI.
- dented42 11mo ago
  The sheer amount of linear algebra number crunching vs some database lookups is monumental. I don’t see how an LLM could ever be as efficient as a search engine.
  - femiagbabiaka 11mo ago
    Search engines aren't just some database lookups, is the thing. There's actually quite a bit of linear alegbra involved in both, for page ranking especially Anyways these sorts of comparisons make no sense to begin with, and quite obviously at the moment the worst actors cough xAI cough who are deploying massively polluting generators into residential neighborhoods are much worse than, say, Google Search
    - Insanity 11mo ago
      When I took linear algebra at uni in 2012, one of the examples to show practical applications in our text book was the PageRank algorithm!
- mplewis 11mo ago
  Maybe because we all know that working search is better than an LLM hands down? What are you talking about? The only reason people go to LLMs instead of Google is because Google Search has been destroyed by Sundar Pichai.
  - simianwords 11mo ago
    This has to be satire. LLMs are a monumental jump on search engines. Imagine a hypothetical search competition and you are given Google and I am given ChatGPT. I’ll win every single time.

JimDabell 11mo ago

> People in the comments seem confused about this with statements like “greenest AI is no AI” style comments. And well, obviously that’s true It’s not true. AI isn’t especially environmentally unfriendly, which means that if you’re using AI then whatever activity you would otherwise be doing stands a good chance of being more environmentally unfriendly. For instance, a ChatGPT prompt uses about as much energy as watching 5–10 seconds of Netflix. So AI is greener than no AI in the cases where it displaces other, less green activities. And when you have the opportunity to use human labour or AI, AI is almost certainly the greener option as well. For instance, the carbon emissions of writing and illustrating are far lower for AI than for humans: > Our findings reveal that AI systems emit between 130 and 1500 times less CO2e per page of text generated compared to human writers, while AI illustration systems emit between 310 and 2900 times less CO2e per image than their human counterparts. — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x The AI water issue is fake: https://andymasley.substack.com/p/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake https://andymasley.substack.com/p/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment: https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-cheat-sheet-for-conversations-about https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-cheat-sheet-for-conversa... A ChatGPT prompt uses about as much energy as watching 5–10 seconds of Netflix: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Nov/29/chatgpt-netflix/ https://simonwillison.net/2025/Nov/29/chatgpt-netflix/

pretendgeneer 11mo ago
> And when you have the opportunity to use human labour or AI, AI is almost certainly the greener option as well. For instance, the carbon emissions of writing and illustrating are far lower for AI than for humans: Do you plan on killing that person to stop their emissions? If you don't use the AI program the emissions don't happen, if you don't hire a person for a job, they still use the carbon resources. So the comparison isn't 1000kg Co2 for a human vs 1kg Co2 for an LLM. It's 1000kg Co2 for a human vs 1001kg Co2 for an LLM.
- JimDabell 11mo ago
  Please read the source I linked to; your reply doesn’t make any sense in that context.

d--b 11mo ago

Yeah, but people here also know that AI that doesn’t use vast amounts of energy is generally returning mediocre results. And mediocre results are not useful at all. So whatever you save on energy doesn’t really matter if the utility is going to zero. Your comparison to cars is good. A cheap car will be slower and less comfortable but will get you where you want to be ultimately. That’s the core value of the car. A bad LLM may not get you anywhere. It’s more like having a cheap powerdrill that can drill through plaster but not through concrete, in the end you still want the expensive drill…

monegator 11mo ago

I want a car because i need a car, even tough i may agree that is environmentally unfrinedly. Unless we have a different mean of transport that gives me the same amount of freedom, i want a car. I don't want LLMs because i don't need them, yet they are being shoved down my throat.