AI could worsen energy crisis and destroy jobs, critics warn

[HiggsField29]

AI is destroying jobs - and the energy crisis could make that much worse | Larry Elliottwww.theguardian.com

An opinion piece arguing that AI's energy demands and job disruption could create a worst-case scenario. It highlights the environmental and societal costs often ignored in hype cycles.

Energy usage is an under-discussed issue in AI growth

[Ruby92]

Training and running models at scale isn't cheap environmentally
Some of this feels alarmist but not entirely wrong

[Mike80]

Efficiency improvements will need to keep up with demand

[Highland Fatima]

Energy is costly enough here in the UK

[Candle]

There's a real trade-off between progress and sustainability

[Pilgrim]

That is the take I have had for a while. The squad depth is the real difference at the top level.

Interested to see where this goes.

Most AI tools I have tried are impressive for a session and then disappear from my routine

[MJF_Fan]

Hmm, not convinced. Good shout.

Legend

[Nathan75]

The energy argument is definitely worth discussing, but some of the headlines make it sound like AI is personally plugging into the national grid and stealing everyone's electricity . The reality is more complicated.

Large data centres do consume a lot of power, especially for training massive models, but technology has always created new demands. The internet, smartphones and streaming all changed energy usage patterns too.

The important question is whether we build cleaner energy systems alongside AI growth. Blaming the technology alone ignores the bigger infrastructure problem.

[Natalie61]

The job concern is probably the part that deserves the most attention. Every major technology shift has replaced some tasks while creating others, but the speed of AI development feels different because it is affecting knowledge work as well.

A person using AI tools may become far more productive, but that does not automatically mean companies will share those gains fairly. There needs to be serious discussion about training and adapting workers.

The answer cannot just be pretending AI does not exist. That train has left the station

[SharpLantern]

There is a bit of a contradiction in these debates. People complain AI will take jobs, then complain when companies do not use technology to improve efficiency and reduce costs.

The real issue is who benefits from the efficiency. If AI makes one person able to do the work of five people, that could mean higher productivity or it could mean four people losing income.

Technology itself is not the villain. The way businesses choose to implement it matters a lot.