logo
Scientists Just Found Something Unbelievably Grim About Pollution Generated by AI

Scientists Just Found Something Unbelievably Grim About Pollution Generated by AI

Yahoo5 days ago

Tech companies are hellbent on pushing out ever more advanced artificial intelligence models — but there appears to be a grim cost to that progress.
In a new study in the science journal Frontiers in Communication, German researchers found that large language models (LLM) that provide more accurate answers use exponentially more energy — and hence produce more carbon — than their simpler and lower-performing peers. In other words, the findings are a grim sign of things to come for the environmental impacts of the AI industry: the more accurate a model is, the higher its toll on the climate.
"Everyone knows that as you increase model size, typically models become more capable, use more electricity and have more emissions," Allen Institute for AI researcher Jesse Dodge, who didn't work on the German research but has conducted similar analysis of his own, told the New York Times.
The team examined 14 open source LLMs — they were unable to access the inner workings of commercial offerings like OpenAI's ChatGPT or Anthropic's Claude — of various sizes and fed them 500 multiple choice questions plus 500 "free-response questions."
Crunching the numbers, the researchers found that big, more accurate models such as DeepSeek produce the most carbon compared to chatbots with smaller digital brains. So-called "reasoning" chatbots, which break problems down into steps in their attempts to solve them, also produced markedly more emissions than their simpler brethren.
There were occasional LLMs that bucked the trend — Cogito 70B achieved slightly higher accuracy than DeepSeek, but with a modestly smaller carbon footprint, for instance — but the overall pattern was stark: the more reliable an AI's outputs, the greater its environmental harm.
"We don't always need the biggest, most heavily trained model, to answer simple questions," Maximilian Dauner, a German doctoral student and lead author of the paper, told the NYT. "Smaller models are also capable of doing specific things well. The goal should be to pick the right model for the right task."
That brings up an interesting point: do we really need AI in everything? When you go on Google, those annoying AI summaries pop up, no doubt generating pollution for a result that you never asked for in the first place.
Each individual query might not count for much, but when you add them all up, the effects on the climate could be immense. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, for example, recently enthused that a "significant fraction" of the Earth's total power production should eventually go to AI.
More on AI: CEOs Using AI to Terrorize Their Employees

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'It's more likely they'll lose money': One strategist on why he's bearish on the AI trade
'It's more likely they'll lose money': One strategist on why he's bearish on the AI trade

Yahoo

time34 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

'It's more likely they'll lose money': One strategist on why he's bearish on the AI trade

The AI hype is strong in markets, but BCA Research's Peter Berezin has his doubts. AI's high costs and competition hinder monetization despite potential productivity gains. AI could mirror the progression of other industries that produce economically useful but low-margin businesses. Nearly three years after the launch of ChatGPT, the AI hype is still in full force as the biggest tech companies continue to shell out billions to build out their AI infrastructure. Nvidia, meanwhile, hit a fresh all-time high this week, and some analysts see the gains piling up to push the premier AI chipmaker to a $6 trillion valuation. But will investors see the billions in AI capex pay off? Peter Berezin, chief global strategist at BCA Research, thinks not. "It's more likely they'll lose money," Berezin told Business Insider, referring to Big Tech companies spending big on the technology. It's been hard to bet against the biggest trade in the stock market and its promise to turbocharge economic productivity. Investors quickly shook off the DeepSeek disruption earlier this year, and Big Tech companies plan to spend over $300 billion on AI investment. The rally in tech powered the Nasdaq 100 to record highs this week. Still, Berezin thinks the market is missing the bigger picture. AI technology is tremendously expensive, and he sees monetization opportunities as slim. While AI certainly could boost productivity, that's no guarantee that higher profits will follow. Venture capitalist Peter Thiel famously said "competition is for losers," and Berezin agrees with this sentiment. "You don't make money in a competitive market. You make money as an investor in a monopolistic market. AI, so far, is very, very competitive, and that's a problem for investors in that area," Berezin said. "If everybody can do it, then how do you charge money for it? OpenAI was bragging a few months ago about how they're actually losing more money than expected on their latest model, but to them that was a good thing because people were using it so much. The presumption here, of course, is that if they're using it, they're eventually going to pay for it," Berezin added. "But why would they pay for it if Anthropic, if X, if DeepSeek, and many other companies now are offering similar products like this?" It's not just the AI startups that are engaged in an AI arms race. Berezin points to the Magnificent Seven's capex spend as another example of fierce competition threatening profits. He sees Big Tech's billion-dollar checks as a defensive investment to maintain market share, not an offensive strategy to expand it. At best, Berezin thinks these companies are investing in AI to maintain their current competitive standing, but there's a real possibility that some could lose their market dominance. Undeniably, many Nvidia investors have already made a lot of money, but that's more of a testament to the chipmaker's near-monopoly on GPUs and less so a reflection of sustainable, broad-based AI monetization. Unless there's more consolidation in other parts of the AI ecosystem, Berezin isn't optimistic that the AI trade will pay off. Another key part of the AI bull thesis hinges on the possibility that AI could unlock massive efficiencies across every sector of the economy. While Berezin doesn't deny this potential, this outcome might not be a boon for shareholders, either. Big-box retailers adopted IT technologies in the 1990s that led to productivity gains, but since these technologies were widely adopted, the competitive advantage was neutralized, resulting in lower prices for the consumer without a corresponding increase in profit margins, according to Berezin. "You can increase productivity from using AI, but if everybody else is also increasing productivity from using AI and competing in the same market, then what you end up with is lower prices, but not higher margins," Berezin said. In his opinion, the AI industry is likely on track to become something that looks like the airline industry: capital intensive, critical for the economy, but very low margin. "I think that's the risk with AI, that the benefits of AI filter down more to the users of AI rather than the producers, which historically has been the case for most technological innovations," Berezin said. Read the original article on Business Insider Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Peter Thiel is utterly wrong about Alzheimer's
Peter Thiel is utterly wrong about Alzheimer's

Engadget

time38 minutes ago

  • Engadget

Peter Thiel is utterly wrong about Alzheimer's

The New York Times ran a lengthy interview this morning between columnist Ross Douthat and venture capitalist and PayPal founder Peter Thiel. There's a reason it was published in the opinion section. Thiel, a Trump booster whose allies — including Vice President JD Vance — now litter the White House, was given free reign to discuss a variety of topics across over an hour of softball questions. Is Greta Thunberg the literal antichrist? Are the three predominant ideological schools in Europe environmentalism, "Islamic Shariah law" and "Chinese Communist totalitarian takeover"? Is AI "woke" and capable of following Elon Musk to Mars? Peter seems to think so! Perhaps the "just asking questions" school of journalism could add " hey, what the fuck are you talking about " to its repertoire. Admittedly, many of these assertions fall squarely into the realm of things that exist within Thiel's mind palace rather than verifiable facts, with at least one notable exception. Relatively early in their chat, Peter tells Ross the following [emphasis ours]: If we look at biotech, something like dementia, Alzheimer's — we've made zero progress in 40 to 50 years. People are completely stuck on beta amyloids. It's obviously not working. It's just some kind of a stupid racket where the people are just reinforcing themselves. It's a pretty bold claim! It's also completely untrue. "There was no treatment 40 or 50 years ago for Alzheimer's disease," Sterling Johnson, a professor of Geriatrics and Gerontology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, told Engadget. "What we've been able to do in the last 20 years has been actually pretty extraordinary. We've developed markers that help us identify when this disease starts, using the using amyloid markers and tau biomarkers, we know that the disease actually begins 20 years before the symptoms do, and that is a critical thing to know if we are going to prevent this disease." At the moment, Alzheimer's remains incurable. But the absence of a miracle cure does not negate the accomplishments thus far in detection and prevention. "The first treatments were these window dressing treatments. It's like treating the symptoms like you would treat a cold [...] The first generation of amyloid therapy was that kind of approach where it just addressed the symptoms by amping up the neurons and increasing the neurotransmitters available to the to the brain cells." Johnson, whose team runs one of the largest and longest studies on people at risk for developing Alzheimer's diseases, added, "Now we have opportunities to actually modify the disease biology through the amyloid pathway, but also we're focused on the other proteinopathy — which is tau — and there's clinical trials underway." Thiel, a well-known advocate for advancements in radical life extension (including a reported interest in injecting himself with the blood of young people) sees the state of scientific research in this area as sluggish and risk averse. But the groundbreaking work is happening at this moment. Professor Johnson pointed to a monoclonal antibody called gantenerumab. In an early test of 73 participants with inherited mutations that would cause them to overproduce amyloid in the brain, it cut the number of participants who developed Alzheimer's symptoms practically in half. "The big phase three prevention trials [of gantenerumab] are happening right now," For someone who fashions himself as a heterodox thinker, Thiel certainly seems to have stumbled on a remarkably similar talking point to current Trump administration FDA head Robert F Kennedy Jr. "Alzheimer's is a very, very good example of how [National Institute of Health] has gone off the rails over the past 20 years ago with research on amyloid plaques" Kennedy said at a Department of Health budgetary hearing last month. He claimed the NIH was "cutting off any other hypothesis" due to "corruption." Unsurprisingly, the Alzheimer's Association has called this "demonstrably false." "In reality, over the most recent 10 years available (2014-2023), less than 14% of new National Institutes of Health (NIH) Alzheimer's projects focused on amyloid beta as the therapeutic target," the organization wrote, "As of September 2024, the National Institute on Aging was investing in 495 pharmacological and non-pharmacological trials. To state that Alzheimer's research is focused on amyloid to the exclusion of other targets is clearly wrong." If I, personally, wanted more robust medical research and a chance an eternal life (I don't), greasing the wheels of an administration broadly gutting funding for science would be a strange way to make that happen. But this is the sort of incoherence we've come to expect from tech oligarchs: they say what benefits them, even if it's nonsense on its face, even if a moment's reflection reveals it to be patently false. What's embarrassing is the paper of record giving them free reign to do it.

DeepSeek under scrutiny in Germany, AI tokens falter
DeepSeek under scrutiny in Germany, AI tokens falter

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

DeepSeek under scrutiny in Germany, AI tokens falter

DeepSeek under scrutiny in Germany, AI tokens falter originally appeared on TheStreet. The AI crypto industry was shaken on June 28, with the market cap decreasing by 1.97% in the last 24 hours to $26.92 billion. Overall traded volume was up more than 30% and indicated increased volatility. Bitcoin maintained a level of stability, trading at $107,036.51 and down only 0.31% on the day. The decline deepened following the news that Germany's top privacy regulator had officially declared the Chinese AI chatbot DeepSeek "illegal". The regulator invoked the EU's Digital Services Act and warned Apple and Google to remove DeepSeek from their app stores or face consequences, according to Bloomberg. After the Chinese app refused to cooperate, the Berlin agency used the EU's Digital Services Act, which requires internet platforms like Apple and Google to remove illegal content. DeepSeek was also developed in Hangzhou in January of 2025. It shocked the tech industry with the R1 model, a lean but powerful large language model. However, Meike Kamp, Berlin's privacy watchdog, explained that "Chinese authorities have extensive rights to access personal data" and indicated that the app did not comply with the standards set out in EU data protection regulatory action sparked immediate anxiety in the AI and crypto space. Short-term charts show erratic swings from various AI-linked tokens. Virtua Protocol (VIRTUAL) was down over 15% over the past week and only showed a minor daily rebound to close the week, while other tokens like ai16z and PAAL AI were down over 9% over the week. Larger-cap players like Render (RENDER) and NEAR Protocol also had downward action. Former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao (CZ) offered a pointed criticism, saying, "Too many AI agent developers focus too much on their token and not enough on the agent's usefulness,' on April also suggested, at the Token2049 summit, that crypto would eventually be the financial backbone of AI agents — "crypto is going to be the currency for AI" — but added it needed product-market fit, not hype-driven token launches. With Grok 4 also anticipated from Elon Musk's xAI post-July 4, the AI token market may continue to be erratic as narratives collide with regulations. DeepSeek under scrutiny in Germany, AI tokens falter first appeared on TheStreet on Jun 27, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Jun 27, 2025, where it first appeared. Sign in to access your portfolio

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store