I am sure that’s intentional, because this article is the same thing we see from e/acc personalities any time the environmental impact is brought up.
Deflection away from what actually uses power and pretending the entire system is just an API like anything else.
Then I would certainly be interested to know why you spent so much time making the same argument e/acc AI proponents make ad nauseam.
As it stands, the majority of your article reads like a debate against a strawman that is criticizing something they don't understand, rather than a refutation of any real criticism of environmental impact from the generative AI industry.
If your aim was to shut down bad faith criticism of AI from people who don't understand it, that's admirable and I'd understand the tone of the article, but certainly not the claim of the title.
The point of the article WAS to debate someone criticizing something they don't understand. AI as a whole is using a lot of energy and we should think about the environmental impacts, but I pretty regularly meet people who think that every individual ChatGPT search is uniquely bad for the environment. I tried to make it as clear as possible that that's the issue I'm responding to, not all AI energy use.
I am to put it mildly not an e/acc and referenced being very worried about other risks from advanced AI in the article.