Ecosia have planted 250,000+ trees so far and publish their accounts every month. I can’t think of a better option, unless there is a niche requirement.
Isn’t that hyperbole rather than truth? They’re still carbon negative.
They don’t provide AI by default (at least, I don’t get it). So people like us can continue to not use AI and the hundreds of million who use it every day can still support tree planting.
I don’t like AI, but if they don’t add it they could risk limiting their reach and environmental goals.
AI companies do not release any numbers themselves for carbon emissions. Therefore, companies that use AI cannot in any certainty claim to be carbon negative or neutral, because they have to count the supply chain emissions as well.
not adding AI does not stifle environmental goals, in fact you can only truthfully claim to strive for carbon goals if you do not use AI. After all, there is a reason that Microsoft abandoned their emission goals with AI as the cited reason first and foremost, which shows how incredibly dirty AI can be, even if no one releases any sensible metrics.
AI companies do not release any numbers themselves for carbon emissions.
I think the EU is even helping them keep that “operationally sensitive information” private, which is a shame.
not adding AI does not stifle environmental goals
I can’t agree or disagree here. I know the demand for AI is huge: hundreds of millions of users per day and at least a billion per week. If Ecosia is seen not to have this feature, I would consider it possible that it hurts their adoption and therefore their goals.
which shows how incredibly dirty AI can be, even if no one releases any sensible metrics.
Yes. I’m not sure how much solace the “world greenest AI” slogan can really offer in that context. https://blog.ecosia.org/ecosia-ai/ - but when I’m recommending search to someone, I recommend Ecosia over Google, Bing, DDG, Qwant, Mojeek, etc. simply because I think they are more of a net positive than the other options.
Who knows, maybe in a year or twos time I’ll look back and regret it when more information surfaces. But they’ve been sensible enough until now with their operational choices to reach tree-planting goals.
Go to https://ecosia.org in a private browser window. It says “AI that answers to the planet”. Search something and the AI Overview on top is enabled by default.
I use them with AI disabled, but it should be the default setting.
Edit: I just did a couple test searches and didn’t get the AI overview. Don’t know what triggers it.
Go to https://ecosia.org/ in a private browser window. It says “AI that answers to the planet”. Search something and the AI Overview on top is enabled by default.
For what it’s worth i’ve been using them for like a year and I clear my cookies often and never got this AI overview thingy you’re talking about. I actually have no clue how it even looks like.
It’s not me downvoting you, by the way. Anyway, AI is the antithesis of eco-friendly so I share the criticism. But given their success to date I defer to their sense for pragmatism and results.
Ecosia have planted 250,000+ trees so far and publish their accounts every month. I can’t think of a better option, unless there is a niche requirement.
they burn all their efforts by pushing genAI tech on their platform
Isn’t that hyperbole rather than truth? They’re still carbon negative.
They don’t provide AI by default (at least, I don’t get it). So people like us can continue to not use AI and the hundreds of million who use it every day can still support tree planting.
I don’t like AI, but if they don’t add it they could risk limiting their reach and environmental goals.
AI companies do not release any numbers themselves for carbon emissions. Therefore, companies that use AI cannot in any certainty claim to be carbon negative or neutral, because they have to count the supply chain emissions as well.
not adding AI does not stifle environmental goals, in fact you can only truthfully claim to strive for carbon goals if you do not use AI. After all, there is a reason that Microsoft abandoned their emission goals with AI as the cited reason first and foremost, which shows how incredibly dirty AI can be, even if no one releases any sensible metrics.
Who knows, maybe in a year or twos time I’ll look back and regret it when more information surfaces. But they’ve been sensible enough until now with their operational choices to reach tree-planting goals.
Go to https://ecosia.org in a private browser window. It says “AI that answers to the planet”. Search something and the AI Overview on top is enabled by default.
I use them with AI disabled, but it should be the default setting.
Edit: I just did a couple test searches and didn’t get the AI overview. Don’t know what triggers it.
For what it’s worth i’ve been using them for like a year and I clear my cookies often and never got this AI overview thingy you’re talking about. I actually have no clue how it even looks like.
It’s not me downvoting you, by the way. Anyway, AI is the antithesis of eco-friendly so I share the criticism. But given their success to date I defer to their sense for pragmatism and results.