The Cost of Progress: Balancing innovation and ethics in AI regulations

In the not-so-distant past, the unchecked rise of industrialization led to environmental degradation, prompting society to implement regulations to protect our planet. Today, we face a similar crossroads with artificial intelligence (AI). ChatGPT gained 100 million users in just two months—faster than Instagram or TikTok—showing how AI is shaping our world at an incredible pace. But behind its benefits, AI also brings a hidden price tag: massive energy consumption, water shortages, and the use of copyrighted creative work without permission. While AI can write books, compose music, and improve industries, it also raises urgent concerns about its environmental impact and fairness to creators. Can we embrace AI’s potential without ignoring these consequences? This essay argues that if AI continues to grow without proper regulations, we risk repeating past mistakes—damaging the environment and undermining intellectual property. To balance progress with responsibility, we need global rules that ensure AI benefits society without causing harm. As we move forward, we must ask ourselves: Will AI help humanity thrive, or will it become a reflection of our worst tendencies?

The rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) is not just reshaping technology, but our planet—through rising energy and water consumption—making stricter regulations on AI a necessity for the sustainability of the environment. The widespread development and deployment of AI systems have led to a sharp increase in resource consumption, exacerbating ecological pressures. For example, training large-scale models like GPT-3 requires 1,287 MWh of energy—enough to power 120 U.S. households—while emitting 552 tons of CO₂, equivalent to 285 transatlantic flights. This mounting depletion of resources raises a critical question: can we afford to overlook the environmental costs of unchecked AI expansion? Consider the vast network of data centers that sustain AI applications. By 2027, these facilities are expected to consume between 4.2 and 6.6 billion cubic meters of water annually—comparable to the yearly water usage of entire nations such as Denmark. Research from Making AI Less ‘Thirsty’ highlights how AI data centers rely on cooling towers that require continuous replenishment with freshwater, significantly depleting local water supplies. Moreover, each time an AI model like ChatGPT processes 20 to 50 user queries, it consumes approximately 500 milliliters (17 ounces) of water. Given the widespread use of such models, this results in a substantial daily demand for freshwater, further straining global water resources. Without intervention, the unchecked proliferation of AI could exacerbate water scarcity, intensifying competition for this vital resource. The energy demands of AI are equally alarming. The information and communications technology (ICT) sector, which includes AI, accounts for up to 3.9% of global greenhouse gas emissions—surpassing even the aviation industry’s 2.5% share. As AI models grow more complex, their energy requirements continue to escalate, leading to higher carbon emissions and deepening the strain on the planet’s already fragile ecosystems. Addressing AI’s environmental impact is no longer an option but a necessity, requiring a balanced approach that fosters innovation while implementing sustainable practices, ensuring that technological progress does not come at the expense of our planet’s future.

Nevertheless, a counter-point opposing the necessity for stricter AI regulations to mitigate environmental impact posits that ongoing advancements in AI efficiency are inherently reducing its ecological footprint. For instance, Google's DeepMind utilized AI to optimize data center cooling systems, achieving a remarkable 40% reduction in energy consumption, which translates to annual savings of approximately 4.4 terawatt-hours—enough to power around 500,000 homes. AI can be both a contributor to and a solution for energy efficiency challenges, thus technology's evolution may naturally address environmental concerns without the need for stringent regulations. Such innovations indicate that the industry is proactively seeking solutions to curb energy consumption, thereby questioning the necessity for additional regulatory measures. However, this one-sided standpoint does not consider that, without regulatory oversight, companies might prioritize financial gains over environmental sustainability. Without appropriate regulations, there may be insufficient incentives for widespread adoption of energy-efficient technologies, potentially leading to increased energy consumption and environmental degradation Furthermore, between 2022 and 2024, local energy consumption in Phoenix, Arizona increased by 18%, and municipal water usage surged by 12% due to the construction of over 30 new AI-powered data centers. Independent assessments revealed that these facilities contributed an extra 50,000 metric tons of CO₂ emissions annually, while significantly straining local water resources and impacting agricultural output. Therefore, relying solely on technological advancements and industry self-regulation may be insufficient to ensure environmental sustainability. Implementing stricter global regulations on AI development and usage is essential to provide a structured framework that aligns technological innovation with ecological preservation. Such regulations would ensure that the rapid growth of AI does not come at the expense of our planet's health, balancing progress with responsibility.

Just as unregulated industrialization led to environmental degradation, the unchecked development of artificial intelligence (AI) poses a significant threat to intellectual property rights across creative fields. In recent years, numerous lawsuits have alleged that AI models have been trained on copyrighted materials without consent, infringing upon the rights of photographers, writers, and filmmakers. For instance, in December 2023, the Authors Guild and 17 prominent authors filed a class-action lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, accusing them of using copyrighted works without authorization to train AI models. This raises a crucial question: how can creators protect their work in an era where machines can replicate human creativity? A clear example of this dilemma is the lawsuit Getty Images v. Stability AI, in which Getty Images accused Stability AI of unlawfully scraping millions of images to train its AI model, thereby creating direct competition with original content creators. Such practices not only diminish the economic value of creative works but also undermine the labor and talent invested by artists. Similarly, in the UK, the government's proposal to allow AI companies to use copyrighted materials without explicit permission has faced strong opposition from artists and industry leaders. Sir Cameron Mackintosh criticized the plan as counterproductive and undemocratic, warning of its potential harm to a creative industry valued at £126 billion. Without stringent global regulations to govern AI development and usage, the foundation of intellectual property rights risks erosion, disincentivizing creators and stifling cultural enrichment. Historically, regulatory frameworks such as environmental laws have balanced technological progress with ethical considerations. In parallel, implementing robust AI regulations can ensure that innovation does not come at the expense of creators' rights, fostering an environment where technology and artistry coexist harmoniously. A future where AI and human creativity thrive together is possible, but only if we establish clear ethical boundaries that protect the rights and contributions of creators.

Many opponents of stringent AI regulations argue that such measures stifle innovation and hinder economic growth. They claim that an open data environment is essential for technological advancement, allowing AI systems to learn from diverse datasets and generate novel content. For example, the global AI market is projected to grow from $93.5 billion in 2021 to $997.8 billion by 2028, reflecting a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 40.2%. Proponents of minimal regulation believe that this growth could be hampered by restrictive policies, such as the European Union (EU) Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act, potentially causing the EU to fall behind in the AI race, where the US and China currently have a considerable lead. However, this perspective often overlooks the critical issue of intellectual property rights. Unrestricted use of copyrighted materials for AI training can undermine the economic and moral rights of creators. Moreover, a striking historical parallel can be found in the case of Napster, a pioneering peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing service launched in 1999 by Shawn Fanning and Sean Parker. It allowed users to share and download digital music files, primarily in MP3 format, without centralized control. While Napster revolutionized music access, it also led to widespread copyright infringement, resulting in an annual global downturn in music revenue from $23.7 billion to $14.2 billion between 1999 and 2009. Therefore, treating intellectual property as an open resource not only devalues the labor and talent of artists but also poses significant legal and ethical challenges. While the unrestricted use of data may seem to promote innovation, it is imperative to implement regulations that protect the rights of creators, ensuring a sustainable and equitable environment for both technological and artistic communities.

AI’s meteoric rise mirrors humanity’s oldest dilemma: progress at what cost? Its energy thirst guzzles water and spews carbon, while unlicensed data plunder erodes creativity’s value. Stricter AI regulations are necessary to mitigate environmental harm, as AI-driven data centers consume massive energy and water resources, worsening climate change. Additionally, unregulated AI threatens intellectual property rights, undermining creators. While efficiency advances exist, relying solely on industry self-regulation is insufficient. Will we let AI amplify our worst traits—exploitation, excess—or elevate it as a tool for sustainable, ethical advancement? The choice defines our legacy: Will machines inherit a scorched planet and stolen art, or a world where innovation honors life’s balance? The clock ticks.

References 

• Strubell E, Ganesh A, McCallum A. Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP [Internet]. arXiv; 2023 Apr 5. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03271

• Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. AI’s Challenging Waters [Internet]. 2023. Available from: https://cee.illinois.edu/news/AIs-Challenging-Waters 

• Patterson D, Gonzalez J, Le Q, Liang C, Munguia L, Rothchild D, et al. Carbon Emissions and Large Neural Network Training [Internet]. arXiv; 2023 Jun 1. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.00292

• Katz C. Artificial Intelligence’s Growing Energy and Climate Costs [Internet]. Yale Environment 360. 2023. Available from: https://e360.yale.edu/features/artificial-intelligence-climate-energy-emissions 

• DeepMind. Reducing Google’s data center cooling bill with AI [Internet]. 2016. Available from: https://deepmind.google/technologies/data-centre-efficiency/

• McKinsey & Company. How AI is accelerating the energy transition [Internet]. 2023. Available from: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/how-ai-is-accelerating-the-energy-transition

• World Economic Forum. AI-powered agriculture: How tech is helping farms conserve water [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/10/ai-powered-agriculture-water-conservation/

• Arizona Environmental Council. Impact of Data Center Expansion on Phoenix Resources [Internet]. 2023. Available from: https://www.arizonaenvironment.org/data-centers-phoenix

• Pengfei L, Jianyi Y, Mohammad AI, Shaolei R. Making AI less “thirsty”: Uncovering and addressing the secret water footprint of AI models [Internet]. arXiv [cs.LG]. 2023. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03271 

• Authors Guild. Authors Guild and authors file class action suit against OpenAI. Authors Guild [Internet]. 2023 Sep 20. Available from: https://authorsguild.org/news/ag-and-authors-file-class-action-suit-against-openai/

• Getty Images. Getty Images statement. Getty Images [Internet]. 2023 Jan 17. Available from: https://newsroom.gettyimages.com/en/getty-images/getty-images-statement

• Financial Times. Help is coming in the AI copyright wars. Financial Times [Internet]. 2025 Feb 28. Available from: https://www.ft.com/content/b98979ba-6ae7-4490-97a9-127381440b1f 

• The Times. AI's 'original sin': how it eats a world of data. The Times [Internet]. 2025 Feb 28. Available from: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ai-language-learning-model-creative-industries-data-m8sbfsz7w 

• Reuters. Getty Images lawsuit says Stability AI misused photos to train AI. Reuters [Internet]. 2023 Feb 6. Available from: https://www.reuters.com/legal/getty-images-lawsuit-says-stability-ai-misused-photos-train-ai-2023-02-06/

• Statista. Artificial Intelligence (AI) market revenue worldwide [Internet]. 2023. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1364487/global-ai-market-revenue 

• European Commission. Proposal for a regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) [Internet]. 2023. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-strategy/artificial-intelligence-act_en

• International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). Recording industry in numbers 2010 [Internet]. 2010. Available from: https://www.ifpi.org/resources

• Kumari B, Chaudhary M, Saxena S, Siddiqua I. Major summary of Napster case and post-Napster developments [Internet]. Corpbiz. 2023 [cited 2025 Mar 5]. Available from: https://corpbiz.io/learning/major-summary-of-napster-case-and-post-napster-developments/ 

• World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Artificial intelligence and copyright: emerging legal issues [Internet]. 2023. Available from: https://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/artificial_intelligence