Sustainability and AI: Prioritizing Environmental Considerations in Tech Advancements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have positioned this transformative technology at the forefront of innovation, offering unprecedented opportunities to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. Among these challenges, sustainability stands out as a critical area where AI can make a significant and meaningful impact. The literature emphasizes the imperative for a holistic approach to sustainable AI that encompasses environmental, social, and economic dimensions. This comprehensive perspective is crucial for maximizing the potential benefits of AI while minimizing any adverse impacts on the planet and society. Building public trust in AI through transparent, responsible practices is paramount for ensuring the long-term sustainability and ethical deployment of AI technologies. As we stand at the confluence of technological innovation and environmental stewardship, it is incumbent upon researchers, policymakers, and industry leaders to embrace the principles of sustainable AI. By doing so, we can harness the power of AI to not only drive economic growth and technological advancement but also to safeguard our planet for future generations. The time to act is now, and the path forward requires a concerted effort to integrate sustainability at the core of AI development and application. Through such endeavors, we can achieve a future where technology and nature coexist in harmony, paving the way for a sustainable, inclusive, and prosperous world for all.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".