Much of the talk around AI is hyperbolic, speculative, and often misses the point. In our attempts to recreate our own intelligence using conventional computers we have ended up creating energy inefficient and over engineered systems that rely more on computation scale than “intelligence”. If we want intelligent machines as efficient as our own brains, then we must mimic how it computes. Following recent developments in architecture and learning, Jonathan Peters argues that the future of AI will be analogue.

The rise to prominence of artificial intelligence (AI) technology is arguably the most important technological change since the turn of the 21^st Century. So rapid have the technological advancements been that in a matter of a few years global understanding and perspectives on AI have changed from ignorance to a mixture of intrigue, curiosity, and fear of the unknown future consequences.

When most think of concerns regarding AI technology, the prospect of robot-like technology terrorising humans and taking over the planet will often come to mind. Whilst this is dramatic and highly unlikely in the near future, one concern people should be more informed about is the implications of the technology on the climate. An example of this naivety is clear when looking at the recent EU ‘artificial intelligence act’, dubbed the ‘first of its kind’ in the world, does little to address climate threats. The bill itself asks companies to self-report climate-related statistics, such as consumption, however there is no limits/punishments for extreme energy usage.

Statistics put into perspective just how serious the problem really is. Academic research predicts by 2027, AI alone will be responsible for the same amount of energy expenditure as countries such as the Netherlands, Croatia and Kenya.  Other research by the International Energy Agency forecasts energy use from data centres powering AI will be equal to that of Japan within two years.

Statistics so damning for the environment beg the question of why policy makers are not doing more now, especially with the Paris Climate Agreement in mind. But the answer is simple: there is a lack of knowledge on the subject. AI’s commercial profitability has brought secrecy from the largest players in the industry such as OpenAI, Google and Microsoft. This secrecy is competition driven, although sceptics would also suggest knowledge of such information could damage public interest in the technology, harming long-term business.

___