AI companies do not release any numbers themselves for carbon emissions. Therefore, companies that use AI cannot in any certainty claim to be carbon negative or neutral, because they have to count the supply chain emissions as well.
not adding AI does not stifle environmental goals, in fact you can only truthfully claim to strive for carbon goals if you do not use AI. After all, there is a reason that Microsoft abandoned their emission goals with AI as the cited reason first and foremost, which shows how incredibly dirty AI can be, even if no one releases any sensible metrics.
AI companies do not release any numbers themselves for carbon emissions.
I think the EU is even helping them keep that “operationally sensitive information” private, which is a shame.
not adding AI does not stifle environmental goals.
I can’t agree or disagree here. I know the demand for AI is huge: hundreds of millions of users per day and at least a billion per week. If Ecosia is seen not to have this feature, I would consider it possible that it hurts their adoption and therefore their goals.
which shows how incredibly dirty AI can be, even if no one releases any sensible metrics.
Yes. I’m not sure how much solace the “world greenest AI” slogan can really offer in that context. https://blog.ecosia.org/ecosia-ai/ - but when I’m recommending search to someone, I recommend Ecosia over Google, Bing, DDG, Qwant, Mojeek, etc. simply because I think they are more of a net positive than the other options.
Who knows, maybe in a year or twos time I’ll look back and regret it when more information surfaces. But they’ve been sensible enough until now with their operational choices to reach tree-planting goals.
Yes, I was about to say to @RiverRabbits@lemmy.blahaj.zone that they’re nearly all using AI but Ecosia is still the only one planting trees, so it seems like a no-brainer to me…
AI companies do not release any numbers themselves for carbon emissions. Therefore, companies that use AI cannot in any certainty claim to be carbon negative or neutral, because they have to count the supply chain emissions as well.
not adding AI does not stifle environmental goals, in fact you can only truthfully claim to strive for carbon goals if you do not use AI. After all, there is a reason that Microsoft abandoned their emission goals with AI as the cited reason first and foremost, which shows how incredibly dirty AI can be, even if no one releases any sensible metrics.
I think the EU is even helping them keep that “operationally sensitive information” private, which is a shame.
I can’t agree or disagree here. I know the demand for AI is huge: hundreds of millions of users per day and at least a billion per week. If Ecosia is seen not to have this feature, I would consider it possible that it hurts their adoption and therefore their goals.
Yes. I’m not sure how much solace the “world greenest AI” slogan can really offer in that context. https://blog.ecosia.org/ecosia-ai/ - but when I’m recommending search to someone, I recommend Ecosia over Google, Bing, DDG, Qwant, Mojeek, etc. simply because I think they are more of a net positive than the other options.
Who knows, maybe in a year or twos time I’ll look back and regret it when more information surfaces. But they’ve been sensible enough until now with their operational choices to reach tree-planting goals.
Yes, I was about to say to @RiverRabbits@lemmy.blahaj.zone that they’re nearly all using AI but Ecosia is still the only one planting trees, so it seems like a no-brainer to me…