this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2026
1252 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

79476 readers
3982 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 58008@lemmy.world 171 points 1 day ago (4 children)

At least they have an AI-free option, as annoying as it is to have to opt into it.

On a related note, it's hilarious to me that the Ecosia search engine has AI built in. Like, I don't think planting any number of trees is going to offset the damage AI has done and will do to the planet.

[–] Magnum@infosec.pub 45 points 1 day ago (1 children)

lol what? Do they have some kind of statement addressing that?

[–] Deckname@olio.cafe 38 points 21 hours ago (4 children)

Yes they addressed it here. its kind of understandable given that they want to exist and everyone else has AI... But companies... At least you can turn it off.

[–] Dojan@pawb.social 2 points 9 hours ago

Climate intelligence. Gods, excuse me while I go fetch my skeleton that was ejected from my body due to the cringe.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 28 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

At this point, not having AI would be a selling point.

[–] Magnum@infosec.pub 21 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I wish they would have talked about how many teees you need to offset an ecosia AI search

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 14 hours ago

And make AI opt-in rather than opt-out so Ecosia can educate their users

[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I want to know what economic forces are making it so that having AI, which costs money and very few users actually want, such a forgone conclusion. Who is paying them?

[–] mghackerlady@leminal.space 5 points 14 hours ago

Investors who bought into the hype and the middle managers who are scared of being fired by them

[–] Mwa@thelemmy.club 32 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

someone tell them AI isnt good for the environment

[–] kevin2107@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago

I don't get this argument when literally everything else is hundreds of times worse like lifestock and cars. Removing either one today would dramatically change the environment.

Do you drive a car or take any kind of transportation?

[–] NewDay@piefed.social 4 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Ecosia produces its own green solar energy. According to them, they produce twice as much as they consume. The AI is still shit, because it is just ChatGPT.

[–] morto@piefed.social 3 points 10 hours ago

Reducing the albedo of some area just to disperse the captured energy for no utility (ai) is still harmful to the environment and contributes to earth's energy imbalance. Solar energy is great when it replaces fossil fuel emissions, not when it's just wasted.

[–] Mwa@thelemmy.club 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

hot take: this comment gives me a idea for them a opt-in AI powered entirely by solar energy if we solve the ethics problem first ofc.

[–] sockenklaus@sh.itjust.works 6 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

Well, I don't know about that.

My swiss hoster just started offering AI and says that their AI infrastructure is 100 % powered by renewables and the waste heat is used for district heating.

You could argue that LLM training in itself used so much energy that you'll never be able to compensate for the damage, but I don't know. 🤷

[–] PixxlMan@lemmy.world 29 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

While good, you should always keep in mind that using renewables for this means that power can't be used for other purposes, meaning the difference has to be covered by other sources of energy. Always bear in mind that these things don't exist in a vaccum. The resources they use always mean resources aren't used elsewhere. At worst this would mean that new clean power is built to power a waste, and then old dirty power has to be used for everything else, instead of being replaced by clean energy.

[–] MBM@lemmings.world 2 points 15 hours ago

Yeah that reminds me of the data centres hogging green energy that was meant for households

[–] sockenklaus@sh.itjust.works 4 points 19 hours ago

That's actually a very good point, thanks!

[–] Demdaru@lemmy.world -1 points 20 hours ago

On the other hand...the same private entity wouldn't buy the means to produce renewable power if they didn't want to power their AI center. So in the ends, nothing changes, and the power couldn't be used for other purposes because it simply wouldn't be generated.

However, as they did and are using it to promote themselves, they are influencing others to also adopt renewable energy policy in a way, no matter how small.

No, normally I am not that optimistic, but I am trying ^^"

[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 3 points 17 hours ago

Do you believe them? Why?

[–] freeman@feddit.org 3 points 23 hours ago
[–] notthebees@reddthat.com 4 points 23 hours ago

I'm just happy they give the option to turn off the ai overview as a setting.