> I'm confused what you are saying, do you suggest "the market" will somehow do something to address climate change? By what mechanism? And what do LLMs have to do with that?

No, I'm suggesting that the market will take care of the cost/benefit equation, and that the externalities are part of the costs. We could always do a better job of making sure that costs capture these externalities, but that's not the same thing as what the author seems to be saying.

(Also I'm saying that we need to get on with nuclear already, but that's a secondary point.)

> The problem with LLMs is that they require exorbitant amounts of energy and fresh water to operate, driving a global increase in ecological destruction and carbon emissions.

They no more "require" this, than operating an electric car "requires" the same thing. While there may be environmental extremists who advocate for a wholesale elimination of cars, most sane people would be happy for the balance between cost and benfit represented by electric cars. Ergo, a similar balance must exist for LLMs.

> I'm suggesting that the market will take care of the cost/benefit equation, and that the externalities are part of the costs.

You believe that climate change is an externality that the market is capable of factoring in the cost/benefit equation. Then I don't understand why you disagreed with the statement "the market will somehow do something to address climate change". There is a more fundamental disagreement here.

You said:

> If these tools [LLMs/ai] have some value, then we can finally invest in forms of energy (i.e. nuclear) that will solve the underlying problem

And again, why? By what mechanism? Let's say Microsoft 10x it's profit through AI, then it will "finally invest in forms of energy (i.e. nuclear) that will solve the underlying problem". But why? Why would it? Why do you say "we" if we talk about the market.