New A.I. search engines: a technological leap forward, BUT !! at a $cost - atmospheric Carbon

[sear]

New artificial intelligence (A.I.) search engines offer cyber-searchers the capability:

In early February, first Google, then Microsoft, announced major overhauls to their search engines. Both tech giants have spent big on building or buying generative AI tools, which use large language models to understand and respond to complex questions. Now they are trying to integrate them into search, hoping they’ll give users a richer, more accurate experience.
... third-party analysis by researchers estimates that the training of GPT-3, which ChatGPT is partly based on, consumed 1,287 MWh, and led to emissions of more than 550 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent—the same amount as a single person taking 550 roundtrips between New York and San Francisco.

The Generative AI Race Has a Dirty Secret

Integrating large language models into search engines could mean a fivefold increase in computing power and huge carbon emissions.

www.wired.com

One obvious question:
Will search engine operators simply supersede the current search engines, rendering them defacto obsolete?
Or will the AI upgrades be added, as an additional search option, providing Internet users discretion in which search option to apply?

 

[Shiftless2]

Server farms use an amazing amount of electricity (air conditioning anyone). That's one of the reasons that places like Iceland are so attractive

Iceland’s data centers are booming—here’s why that’s a problem

Bitcoin miners and data scientists love cheap, green Icelandic processing power. Maybe a little too much.

www.technologyreview.com

That said, I believe the currently biggest server farm in the world is in Nevada.

 

[sear]

I've read explanations of crypto-currency, complex calculations blah blah blah.
None that I've encountered included an explanation of why the same crypto unit couldn't be equally viable as a medium of $exchange, with 10% less calculation. What is it about that last 10% that makes the difference between non-viability, and viability.
And if that final 10% does NOT include a determinative transition, then instead of a 10% reduction, why not 20%? Or 47%? or 99.9%?

After all, as holder of both bank savings and bank checking accounts, I'd have thought the gold standard for paper currency (checking account analogy) was indispensable. BUT !!
This economist says no.

There were 8 economic depressions while the U.S. was on the gold standard, and none after the U.S. went off the gold standard. economist Dr. Stephanie Kelton

Well ?!?!
If the $U.S. $dollar doesn't need support from Fort Knox reserves, why does bitcoin need 100%? Authentication?

Seems to me if authentication is the issue, so some evil bitcoin imposter doesn't merely make up a number, with virtual zero computing power behind it, then a more energy efficient verification protocol is in order.
One obvious solution to that is universal open records.
Of course that too could mean substantial server farm burden. I don't know enough about it to guess at what % reduction (if any) would result.