Skip to content
The methodOpen data
Back to the collection

The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating are lower for AI than for humans

Bill Tomlinson, Rebecca W. Black, Donald J. Patterson, Andrew W. Torrance

2024 · Scientific Reports

Other research
Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
7
Readers
6
Months
6
What’s in a score?

From the abstract

Abstract As AI systems proliferate, their greenhouse gas emissions are an increasingly important concern for human societies. In this article, we present a comparative analysis of the carbon emissions associated with AI systems (ChatGPT, BLOOM, DALL-E2, Midjourney) and human individuals performing equivalent writing and illustrating tasks. Our findings reveal that AI systems emit between 130 and 1500 times less CO2e per page of text generated compared to human writers, while AI illustration systems emit between 310 and 2900 times less CO2e per image than their human counterparts. Emissions analyses do not account for social impacts such as professional displacement, legality, and rebound effects. In addition, AI is not a substitute for all human tasks. Nevertheless, at present, the use of AI holds the potential to carry out several major activities at much lower emission levels than can humans.

Metadata: Crossref. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

7 selected excerpts · 7 total mentions

wongarsu
Neutral mention · rule
Obviously we don't have AGI so we can't compare many tasks. But on tasks where AI does perform at comparable levels (certain subsets of writing, greenfield coding and art) it performs fairly well. They use more power but are also much faster, and that about cancels out. There are plenty of studies that try to put numbers on the exact tradeoff, usually focused more on CO2. Plenty that find AI better by some absurd degree (800 times more efficient at 3d modelling, 130 to 1500 times more efficient at writing, or 300 to 3000 times more efficient at illustrating [1]). The one I'd trust the most is [2] where GPT4 was 5-19 times less CO2 efficient than humans at solving coding challenges 1: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x?fromPaywa... 2: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-24658-5
Original comment The 500k-ton typo: Why data center copper math doesn't add up
biddit
Neutral mention · rule
The dialog around AI resource use is frustratingly inane, because the benefits are never discussed in the same context. LLMs/diffusers are inefficient from a traditional computing perspective, but they are also the most efficient technology humanity has created: > AI systems (ChatGPT, BLOOM, DALL-E2, Midjourney) and human individuals performing equivalent writing and illustrating tasks. Our findings reveal that AI systems emit between 130 and 1500 times less CO2e per page of text generated compared to human writers, while AI illustration systems emit between 310 and 2900 times less CO2e per image than their human counterparts. Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
Original comment AI Labs Are Solving the Power Problem
JimDabell
Neutral mention · rule
> People in the comments seem confused about this with statements like “greenest AI is no AI” style comments. And well, obviously that’s true It’s not true. AI isn’t especially environmentally unfriendly, which means that if you’re using AI then whatever activity you would otherwise be doing stands a good chance of being more environmentally unfriendly. For instance, a ChatGPT prompt uses about as much energy as watching 5–10 seconds of Netflix. So AI is greener than no AI in the cases where it displaces other, less green activities. And when you have the opportunity to use human labour or AI, AI is almost certainly the greener option as well. For instance, the carbon…
Read the full comment
emissions of writing and illustrating are far lower for AI than for humans: > Our findings reveal that AI systems emit between 130 and 1500 times less CO2e per page of text generated compared to human writers, while AI illustration systems emit between 310 and 2900 times less CO2e per image than their human counterparts. — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x The AI water issue is fake: https://andymasley.substack.com/p/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment: https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-cheat-sheet-for-conversa... A ChatGPT prompt uses about as much energy as watching 5–10 seconds of Netflix: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Nov/29/chatgpt-netflix/
Original comment Ecosia: The greenest AI is here
fsflover
Neutral mention · rule
See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42631150 Carbon emissions of writing and illustrating are lower for AI than for humans (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x) and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42745847 Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment (https://andymasley.substack.com/p/individual-ai-use-is-not-b...) 254 points|returningfory2|10 days ago|320 comments
Original comment AI, but at What Cost? Breakdown of AI's Carbon Footprint
rfw300
Neutral mention · rule
If you’re concerned about the environment, that is a trade you should take every time. AI is 100-1000x more carbon-efficient at writing (prose or code) than a human doing the same task. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
Original comment How I Use "AI"
couchand
Neutral mention · rule
Can we change the link to the Nature article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x? What else was the human doing besides generating text and images while that CO2 was being produced? Is the human supposed to cease producing CO2 when they stop generating text and images? This is some galaxy-brained shit. All this study really says is you should be using pen and paper.
Original comment Study: AI writing, illustration emits hundreds of times less carbon than humans
JimDabell
Neutral mention · rule
> He predicted that current AI technology could be on track to annually consume as much electricity as the entire country of Ireland (29.3 terawatt-hours per year). He didn’t though, did he? If you click through and read the report, it is quite clear in saying that this is a worst case scenario if you ignore things like it being unrealistic for Nvidia to even produce the requisite number of chips. It’s also based on the efficiency of 2023 models; he assumes 3 Wh per prompt when today it is 0.34 Wh. It also completely ignores the fact that AI use can displace greater energy use: The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating are lower for AI than for humans > Our…
Read the full comment
findings reveal that AI systems emit between 130 and 1500 times less CO2e per page of text generated compared to human writers, while AI illustration systems emit between 310 and 2900 times less CO2e per image than their human counterparts. […] the use of AI holds the potential to carry out several major activities at much lower emission levels than can humans. — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x It isn’t a bad thing if AI uses x Wh if not using AI uses 1500x Wh. Looking at the absolute usage without considering displacement only gives you half the picture.
Original comment Generative AI. "Slop Generators, are unsuitable for use [ ]"

Keep following the thread.

More in Other research

More from the same topics.