Individual responsibility and AI

If you’re anything like me, the “leverage AI” chatter on LinkedIn, in professional newsletters, and even in my non-work life is very loud. But there’s another contingent, getting increasingly louder, that’s saying not to use it because of the water it uses for training of large models and cooling data centers.*

This debate is yet another use case in a challenge about individual responsibility that I’m constantly thinking about. 

Let’s back up.

In 2010, I was teaching sex ed in Philadelphia public and charter schools for Planned Parenthood. It was such a fun (and hilarious) job, but when the state legislature cut funding for the program, I was laid off. It shifted my mindset and career trajectory from a focus on individual interventions to policy, systems, and environmental changes that affect whole communities and populations.

But policy is unlikely to change without a grassroots effort—made up of individuals—making a lot of noise about something they care about. And not just making noise, but modeling what they want to see on a broader scale, like recycling in their household. While I won’t get into whether city recycling programs actually work, my point is about the balance of individual responsibility of recycling (or anything else) versus larger-scale efforts like industrial recycling or addressing other aspects of the climate crisis that make the need to recycle feel so urgent.

I’ve already written about this when it comes to fast fashion, but I think it’s worth revisiting with an AI frame. 

Because here’s the thing: Sure, if everyone uses ChatGPT to craft their emails, that adds up. But what about the companies, corporations, and other large entities using AI for data processing, chatbots, call centers, discovery algorithms, search results, etc? You may share an Instagram story discouraging your friends and followers from using AI, but what about Instagram’s use of AI to get your story in front of your current and prospective followers?

I might take an extra few minutes to craft a particularly professional email on my own instead of getting a quick assist from ChatGPT, but what about my email service provider’s use of AI in composing emails, or searching and organizing my inbox?

And I think this conflict is intentional. The Powers That Be (AKA capitalism?) suggest individuals’ actions are the only things that will kill or save the planet: recycle, stop using plastic straws, don’t buy fast fashion, don’t eat so much meat, stop using AI. And if we all do “our part,” we’ll be fine. All while businesses, who do these things at an exponentially larger rate, go unchecked.

I’m not saying that you shouldn’t avoid using AI as an individual as a way to save some water and live your values. As I said, policy change requires individuals who care about something to model behavior and make a ruckus. But it’s important to recognize that simply forgoing individual use of AI tools likely won’t have as much impact as advocating for more intentional use of AI on a larger scale.

Here’s where I would usually close with a clever line that ties things together, but I’m admittedly stuck. I could share this post with ChatGPT and ask for suggestions, but I won’t…only because I know the suggestions will be dumb.

*Note that this post is about the environmental implications of AI and not about AI and intellectual property. That’s for another day.