My question regrettably left out an unstated extrapolation I was inferring... what happens when we all "just google-ai it" when we're bored?

Of course I don't think the energy usage of your individual questions is an issue. I also appreciate your data gathering and reporting of it. I didn't mean to come across as critical of your personal use of AI to gather and report this data.

Again, it's the collective effects I'm more worried about. I'm hoping that, collectively, we're all gaining some value from the growing energy expenditures required to obtain it: https://apnews.com/article/climate-google-environmental-repo...

Something I found thought-provoking was this comment about Jevons: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/11/datarama/

Basically: if something useful gets cheaper, people may end up using it way more such that the total energy usage increase is materially large.

I do think there's a risk of that happening here: an AI-assisted search is inevitably more expensive than a single web search (since it runs potentially dozens of additional searches on top of the LLM inference cost).

I could counter that and say that now I can resolve a complex question in 30s with a single typed prompt, where beforehand I might have spent 10 minutes running my laptop and running dozens of searches by hand, for a net increase in spent energy.

... but actually, for trivial curiosity questions I just wouldn't have bothered looking for an answer at all.

I value curiosity deeply though, so maybe it's worth the world burning a few more gigawatts if the result is a more curious population?