Opinion

AI is not worth the environmental destruction it causes

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

In November 2022, OpenAI launched ChatGPT, a language model chatbot that generates dialogue and answers to virtually any question. Two months later, the platform reached an estimated 100 million monthly users. The platform’s explosive growth captivated individuals and companies alike, but it was particularly appealing to students.

With ChatGPT, homework questions can be answered in seconds and lines of code or essay paragraphs are written with even the most vague instructions.

As a result, global companies have shown a growing interest in artificial intelligence. According to the National University, 77% of companies are implementing or exploring the possibilities of AI in their organizations. From Google and Microsoft to Spotify and Instagram, AI assistants and chatbots are popping up everywhere.

These services come with a price, however. Generative AI has a substantial environmental footprint that will only worsen with increasing demands. Data centers consume 3-4% of America’s energy, with the heart of Silicon Valley seeing 60% of its city’s electricity going towards these structures.

The extensive electricity usage, which increases carbon dioxide emissions and adds strain to electric grids, is used to train AI models. Every time a prompt is entered, more power is used. When millions of users input multiple prompts per session, this quickly adds up.

The computing infrastructure and servers must be temperature-controlled, and to offset this heat, water is needed. According to a 2024 study, ChatGPT requires about 18 ounces of water to produce a 100-word email. It is estimated that the platform would use over 435 million liters of water to run this function for around 16 million people.

The estimated figure is likely understated and the true damage is unknown. However, an exact number is not needed to understand generative artificial intelligence is a threat to the environment. In the wake of frequent natural disasters, rising temperatures and scarce resources, people need to analyze their consumption and identify habits that can be changed or eliminated.

AI is not a necessity. Simple tasks such as summarizing an article or revising a paragraph are outsourced to bots and many students have found themselves relying on it. Not only is this a threat to basic thinking skills, it uses water that could be used to fight raging fires.

There seems to be a large attitude-behavior gap when it comes to climate change. It is recognized as a problem but few actively strive to reduce their environmental footprint and hold others accountable. If signing a petition or donating to organizations is too big of a request, the least people could do is stop using generative AI. 

86% of students use AI in their studies, with nearly one-fourth using the tools daily. Students are a key demographic of users and potential audiences.

Often in activist conversations, people feel they have no power to change outcomes. This is not the case. Companies know the power of students and, if they commit to not using such sites and applications, students could significantly decrease consumer demand and halt further environmental damage.

Anaya Baxter is an integrated communications junior who can be reached at [email protected]

Leave a Comment