Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Why the carbon footprint of generative large language models alone will not help us assess their sustainability

There is a growing awareness of the substantial environmental costs of large language models (LLMs), but discussing the sustainability of LLMs only in terms of CO2 emissions is not enough. This Comment emphasizes the need to take into account the social and ecological costs and benefits of LLMs as well.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Strubell, E., Ganesh, A. & McCallum, A. In Proc. 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics 3645–3650 (ACL, 2019).

  2. Luccioni, A. S., Viguier, S. & Ligozat, A.-L. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 24, 253 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bender, E., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A. & Shmitchell, S. In Proc. 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAcct 2021) 610–623 (ACM, 2021).

  4. Coeckelbergh, M. AI Ethics 1, 67–72 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Crownhart, C. MIT Technol. Rev. https://go.nature.com/40eKtAz (2024).

  6. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Common Future (Oxford Univ. Press, 1987).

  7. Kubiszewski, I. et al. Ecol. Econom. 93, 57–68 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. European Commission. Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI https://go.nature.com/3WiIMke (2019).

  9. Mittelstadt, B. Nature Mach. Intell. 1, 501–507 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bolte, L., Vandemeulebroucke, T. & Van Wynsberghe, A. Sustainability 14, 4472 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Willet, J. in Environmental Justice (eds Fogel, S. et al.) Ch. 7 (Routledge, (2016).

  12. Haider, J., Rödl, M. & Joosse, S. Information Res. https://doi.org/10.47989/colis2224 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Future of Life Institute. Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter https://go.nature.com/44Apd9V (2023).

  14. Collingridge, D. The Social Control of Technology (Pinter, 1982).

  15. Metz, C. & Schmidt, G. The New York Times https://go.nature.com/40dN2my (23 May 2024).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wulf Loh.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bossert, L.N., Loh, W. Why the carbon footprint of generative large language models alone will not help us assess their sustainability. Nat Mach Intell (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-025-00979-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-025-00979-y

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene