First of all, I’m going to say that I don’t think this comparison actually makes sense and I was just entertaining the question of the message I was replying to - humans are machines are way too different to reduce the comparison to merely “which is more energy efficient”.
But second, I compared to the same level - I stopped at infrastructure. I didn’t consider the costs (energy or otherwise) of building a solar panel or power plants in the same way I didn’t consider the costs of a frying pan, a hob, or farms. Because if we do that, then any point we make about this needs to be a 500 page dissertation, not a Lemmy message.
The good news is that data for how much material/energy is required for a solar panel is freely available, and also that a solar panel can be used for energy generation many more times than a cow.
Like Gmail? Google drive? Slack?
I’m not defending AI, but I can come up with >10 products that would absolutely cripple the company I work at if the provider suddenly says “Soz, terms of service violation”.
Vendor reliance is dangerous. That doesn’t just apply to AI. If the company in OP’s message had both Claude and Gemini they’d been okay, so the problem isn’t with AI explicitly - the problem is with reliance on services that are critical for workflows, and providers being able to change their mind at a moment’s notice.
In any case, leaving aside where the problem is, the idea that 60 employees can’t use Natural Intelligence to do their jobs means there’s something really wrong with that company…