alt Hacker News> 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
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-conversa...
A ChatGPT prompt uses about as much energy as watching 5–10 seconds of Netflix: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Nov/29/chatgpt-netflix/
Replies
Glad to see someone refute the AI water argument, I'm sick of that one. But I do not see how the displacement argument fits. Maybe you can elaborate but I don't see how we can compare AI usage to watching Netflix for any length of time. I can't see a situation where someone would substitute watching stranger things for asking chatGPT questions?
The writing and illustrating activities use less energy, but the people out there using AI to generate ten novels and covers and fire them into the kindle store would not have written ten novels, so this is not displacement either
How many tens of thousands more pages of text and image are churned out per human created page though?
Pages that would never be created were the stochastic parrot to be turned off and never squawk.
It'd save a lot of energy, water, carbon emissions to just let the already existing humans just get on with the churn.
> 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.
> AI isn’t especially environmentally unfriendly
I think the actual answer is more nuanced and less positive. Although I appreciste how many citations your comment has!
I'd point to just oe, which is a really good article MIT's technology review published about exactly this issue[0].
I'd make two overall points firstly to:
> when you have the opportunity to use human labour or AI, AI is almost certainly the greener option as well.
I think that this is never the trade off, AI normally generates marketing copy for someone in marketing, not by itself, and even when if it does everything itself, the marketing person might stop being employed but certainly doesn't stop existing and producing co2.
My point is, AI electricity usage is almost exclusively new usage, not replacing something else.
And secondly on Simon Wilison / Sam Altman's argument that:
> Assuming that higher end, a ChatGPT prompt by Sam Altman's estimate uses: > > 0.34 Wh / (240 Wh / 3600 seconds) = 5.1 seconds of Netflix > > Or double that, 10.2 seconds, if you take the lower end of the Netflix estimate instead.
This may well be true for prompts, but misses out the energy intensive training process. Which we can't do if we actually want to know the full emmisions impact. Especially in an environment when new models are being trained all the time.
On a more positive note, I think Ecosia's article makes a good point that AI requires electricity, not pollution. It's a really bad piece of timing that AI has taken off initially in the US at a time when the political climate is trying to steer energy away from safer more sustainable sources, and towards more dangerous, polluting ones. But that isn't an environment thay has to continue, and Chinese AI work in the last year has also done a good job of demonstrating that AI trainibg energy use can be a lot kess than previously assumed.
[0] https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/05/20/1116327/ai-energ...