Thanks for saving me the trouble of actually reading the article. Or maybe, now i wanna read it even more to see this kind of questionable hypotheses with my own eyes. 

Reminds me of how media often reports on certain one-time events: "the presence of the police at this football match cost the tax payer 1 million dollars." Well, you would have had to pay these police officers, regardless of if there had been a football match or no match, no?

south_korea_ln

science

Carbon emissions of writing and illustrating are lower for AI than for humans

I should also add...

The parent analogy makes no sense.  Human writers would have been born regardless of whether they became writers.  But the AI developers wouldn't have worked on development except for the AI.  

Furthermore, calculating the carbon footprint of writing as the annual carbon footprint multiplied by time spent writing makes no sense either.  Those human writers likely would have been using the same energy during the time spent writing even if they weren't writing.