this post was submitted on 25 May 2026
411 points (96.2% liked)

Technology

84918 readers
3382 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
411
Google is cannibalizing the web to feed AI (www.theregister.com)
submitted 21 hours ago by throws_lemy@reddthat.com to c/technology@lemmy.world
73 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] RiverRabbits@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] FarraigePlaisteach@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

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.