If you’re concerned about the environment, that is a trade you should take every time. AI is 100-1000x more carbon-efficient at writing (prose or code) than a human doing the same task. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
The way this paper computes the emissions of a human seems very suspect.
> For instance, the emission footprint of a US resident is approximately 15 metric tons CO2e per year [22], which translates to roughly 1.7 kg CO2e per hour. Assuming that a person’s emissions while writing are consistent with their overall annual impact, we estimate that the carbon footprint for a US resident producing a page of text (250 words) is approximately 1400 g CO2e.
Averaging this makes no sense. I would imagine driving a car is going to cause more emissions than typing on a laptop. And if we are comparing "emissions from AI writing text" to "emissions from humans writing text" we cannot be mixing the the latter with a much more emissions causing activity and still have a fair comparison.
But that's besides the point, since it seems that the number being used by the authors isn't even personal emissions -- looking at the source [22], the 15 metric tons CO2e per year is labeled as "Per capita CO₂ emissions; Carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from fossil fuels and industry. Land-use change is not included."
This isn't personal emissions! This is emissions from the entire industrial sector of the USA divided by population. No wonder why AI is supposedly "100-1000x" more efficient. Counting this against the human makes no sense since these emissions are completely unrelated to the writing task the person is doing, its simply the fact they are a person living in the world.
> its simply the fact they are a person living in the world.
That's the whole point! If a task requires some time from a human, then you have to include the appropriate fraction of the (huge!) CO2 cost of "being a human" - the heating/cooling of their house, the land that was cleared for their lawn, and the jet fuel they burn to get to their overseas trip, etc, because all of those are unalienable parts of having a human to do some job.
If the same task is done by a machine, then the fraction of the fixed costs of manufacturing the machine and the marginal costs of running (and cooling) it are all there is.
I don't follow this argument, and there would still be issues with the computation anyways.
1) Pretend I want something written, and I want to minimize emissions. I can ask my AI or a freelancer. The total CO2 emissions of the entire industrial sector has nearly no relation to the emissions increase by asking the freelancer or not. Ergo, I should not count it against the freelancer in my decision making.
2) In the above scenario, there is always a person involved - me. In general, an AI producing writing must be producing it for someone, else it truly is a complete waste of energy. Why do the emissions from a person passively existing count when they are doing the writing, but not when querying?
3) If you do think this should be counted anyways, we are then missing emissions for the AI as the paper neglects to account for the emissions of the entire semiconductor industry/technology sector supporting these AI tools; it only computes training and inference emissions. The production of the GPUs I run my AI on are certainly an unalieanable part of having an AI do some job.
This article presumes that humans cease to emit when not being asked to program. When you use AI, you get both the emissions of AI and the emissions of the person who you did not use, who continues to live and emit.
