@pigworker @ColinTheMathmo We very very much should, I agree. (And also if it were _bad_ at what it purports to do.) But it doesn't look to me as if "burn the world" is at all a reasonable summary of the impact of AI systems to date, or in the foreseeable future if the more extreme-doomerish scenarios don't come to pass.
For instance, see https://andymasley.com/visuals/ai-prompt-footprint/ which purports to estimate the carbon-emissions impact of an individual's AI-model use, and https://blog.andymasley.com/p/training-ai-models-doesnt-emit-that arguing that the cost of _training_ the models isn't that large given that it's a cost shared across all users. I do not claim that all his numbers are correct or that he hasn't missed anything, but it looks to me like he's making an honest and reasonably thorough attempt at quantifying these things.
Again, I am not particularly wedded to these opinions and would expect to be persuadable by good arguments/evidence in the opposite direction.