AI emits less CO2 when writing and illustrating than humans
arxiv.org
arxiv.org
"The emission footprint of a US resident is approximately 15 metric tons CO2e per year (14), or approximately 1.7kg CO2e per hour. Therefore, assuming that a person’s emissions while writing are in line with their overall annual impact, we propose that the carbon footprint for a US resident generating a page of text (250 words) is approximately 1400 grams CO2e."
That's a pretty big assumption, which seems hardly scientific. You would think that they would isolate the act of writing and measure that against the CO2 emissions of equivalent AI.
It's hard not to point out that the authors aren't scholars in this field, but essentially AI apologists.
Of course, their limited motor skills get in the way, but they're working on it.
Regardless, if we go back a few centuries, humans definitely demonstrated their ability to physically draw on paper, without sampling from sources other than their eyes.
But even if we were to consider that human eyes are effectively a way to “collect” samples, that’s another thing not taken into account in the aforementioned article.
If I spend an hour writing my emissions will be about the same as if I had instead spent that hour reading, or watching TV, or playing my guitar, or doing most other things I do.
Computers can be turned off when not working so only need to cause CO2 emission when actually working. Humans cannot be turned off between jobs.
anyone know?
[1]: https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/38970/how-much-energy...
[2]: https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/38970/how-much-energy...