That was the moment when I decided to actively engage not only with the use of AI, but also with its impact.<\/p>\n\n
\n\n
The most sustainable AI? Maybe none at all? <\/h2>\n\n![\"Statistics:](\"https:\/\/www.regeneration-pioneers.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Statistik-AI-Stromverbrauch-600-x-600-px2.jpg\")
Alex de Vries (2023), Joule, Vol. 7, Issue 10, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.joule.2023.09.004 <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\nFirst of all, I clarified what I already knew: I have known for some time that AI is one of the most resource-hungry technologies of our time and that the operation of data centers often takes place in countries with already critical infrastructure. Only that AI consumes massively more energy than other online services. While a search query without AI consumes 0.8 Wh, a Gemini prompt consumes an average of 7.5 Wh. And then there’s the water consumption for cooling the servers – in areas where water is already scarce, there can be a trade-off between the data center and the population. <\/p>\n\n
In view of the fact that our energy is limited, the most honest answer to the question “Which AI should I choose for sustainable use?”<\/strong> would be: none<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\nBut just as someone who lives with children on a mountain without public transport should theoretically not use a car, in practice it is often only feasible with massive reductions in quality of life. When building my website, my programs, writing texts and structuring complex content, I would lose so much time without AI that it would feel like I was typing a proposal on a typewriter. <\/p>\n\n
All right then. If I’m going to use them – then at least the alternative with the fewest side effects. <\/p>\n\n
\n\n\nThe systemic view: What really triggers every AI request<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
As someone who not only preaches systemic thinking, but also practices it, I can’t stop here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Every single AI request has an impact on various other areas of our companies:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n1. energy & water.<\/strong> Every request consumes electricity and water to cool the server. This affects local water cycles, not just in the abstract, but in very concrete terms for local people. <\/p>\n\n\n\n2. money & political power.<\/strong> Every subscription brings money into an operator’s coffers – which flows not only into product development, but also into lobbying, political networks and donations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n3. data & monitoring.<\/strong> Every request reveals a little more about you and the world to AI – and therefore presumably also to US intelligence agencies. A law applies to all American providers: the CLOUD Act, which allows US authorities to access data from US companies, regardless of the server on which it is stored. <\/p>\n\n\n\n4. impact on the psyche <\/strong>of the individual and thus on social coexistence. Because every interaction with AI changes us. Especially when AI is programmed to build relationships with people. <\/p>\n\n\n\n5. change in the economy,<\/strong> in particular the labor market and the distribution of overall economic value added. It is already apparent that there has been a 16% decline in AI-related entry-level jobs(see study<\/a>). Value creation, which was previously widely distributed across the labor market, is increasingly flowing towards a few corporations instead of a large workforce, which will lead to poverty and changes in purchasing power. <\/p>\n\n\n\nThese and probably many other levels cannot be resolved by closing your eyes. If you don’t ask whose infrastructure you are using, whose values have been incorporated into the models and where your subscription dollars are going, you are part of the system that you actually want to change.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nAnd yet, withdrawing from digital visibility will not solve the problem either. The social effects will still become apparent. What’s more, when conscious, reflective people withdraw from the online space, they leave the field to those who go all out without reflection. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
We could ask a lot of questions in the search for a responsible approach to AI. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n
There are questions that we can ask ourselves as a society, such as: <\/p>\n\n
\n- Do we have a social strategy that cushions the shifts in the labor market?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Do we want our children to develop an emotional relationship with an AI? If not, how do we commit to ensuring that such things are not developed in the name of profit? <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- How can we finance research and development in such a way that organizations working for the common good have a chance?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n
We as a society should pay urgent attention to these aspects. Because the further development of AI in the private sector is progressing: whether we advocate ethical and fair regulatory frameworks or not. <\/p>\n\n
Which AI is best to use? <\/h2>\n\n
For me, however, the question still remained: which AI is best to use? <\/em>Derived from the principles of regenerative organizations, the following questions were interesting for me in the next step: <\/p>\n\n\n- What political entanglements does the company have behind the software and what money flows to whom? <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- How safe is AI?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- How is my data handled there? Who has access to my profile? <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n
Let’s get to the bottom of these questions: <\/p>\n\n
Is there a politically independent AI?<\/h2>\n\n
My initial research into the major providers was sobering:<\/p>\n\n
Behind every major AI provider (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini) are the big tech companies from Silicon Valley – all of them engage in massive lobbying or are politically entangled. Some are close to the Democrats, others to the Republicans. Mistral does it the European way: in Brussels and Paris. <\/p>\n\n
Money flows to political parties as support and it is mentioned positively when a provider such as Anthropic (Claude) refuses a government contract because it would have had to disclose user data.<\/p>\n\n
So I did some more searching and identified two smaller providers: <\/p>\n\n
Lumo from the company Proton. <\/strong>The company Proton, based in Switzerland, is owned by a non-profit foundation and specializes in online services with secure privacy.<\/p>\n\nConfer from the founders of Signal<\/strong>: Signal is a messenger service that relies on end-to-end encryption and data protection. It is therefore often used by institutions such as kindergartens and schools where a high level of data protection needs to be ensured. The big difference: profit logic vs. the common good<\/strong><\/p>\n\nIf we compare the security and ethical standards of the big players (OpenAI, Google, Anthropic) with the new, public interest-oriented alternatives, the systemic difference becomes clear. With the Silicon Valley giants, “security” is often a marketing tool to overcome regulatory hurdles, while the business model is based on data exploitation and growth pressure. <\/p>\n\n
\n- OpenAI (ChatGPT)<\/strong> and Google (Gemini)<\/strong> operate as (or have been transformed into) for-profit companies. Their research to ensure that AI shares human values often conflicts with the pressure to maximize user engagement and develop new markets. The political entanglement – from donations to both camps to contracts for government surveillance – shows that their ‘neutrality’ is an illusion. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Anthropic (Claude)<\/strong> is often perceived as more ethical, as they explicitly propagate “Constitutional AI” and reject government data access, but here too, capital flows from tech billionaires (such as Jeff Bezos), which does not rule out long-term conflicts of interest.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n
The paradigm shift at Proton (Lumo) and Signal (Confer):<\/strong> Have no focus on profit maximization.<\/p>\n\n\n- Proton<\/strong> is structurally immunized against takeover and greed for profit by the Proton Foundation<\/em>. The AI (Lumo) is not a means to sell your data, but a tool that is at the service of your privacy. There is no need to sell your attention through “clickbaiting” or manipulative conversation. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Signal<\/strong> (with its AI tool Confer) builds on the same foundation: open source, no advertising, no data collection.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n
Due to the common good orientation and the high value of privacy of both organizations, there are already structurally fewer incentives to get involved in opaque deals with political rulers or financial arrangements. On the contrary, Proton drew attention to itself when it brought charges against Apple’s app store policy<\/a> because it enables censorship. <\/p>\n\nThis initial analysis already reveals two different camps. The big players with deep political entanglements and the two “smaller” providers for whom political impartiality is part of their mission. <\/p>\n\n
However, the fact that a company has no political involvement does not mean that my data is under my data sovereignty. “But I have nothing to hide,” you might be thinking. Perhaps, but data has become so important that experts such as Bernard Lietaer see a change of heart here as one of three key paradigm shifts<\/a> towards a sustainable future. <\/p>\n\nLietaer’s argument: without data sovereignty, we reproduce the same power structures in the digital space that we criticize in the monetary and economic system. Central platforms are becoming the new “banks” – they control, evaluate and monetize our digital traces. <\/p>\n\n
For AI, this means that<\/strong> an AI that is truly oriented towards the common good must not only be politically independent, but also sovereign<\/strong> in<\/strong> terms of data.<\/strong> <\/p>\n\nSo let’s move on to the next question: <\/p>\n\n
\nHow is my data handled by the AI providers?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Data sovereignty: who owns your digital self?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nThe question of data protection with AI is not just technical, but existential. Every input into a chatbot is a piece of your intelligence, your creativity and often also your vulnerability. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The model of the big players:<\/strong> With the established US providers, your input is often the raw material for the next model update. Even if they “anonymize”, there is still a risk that sensitive patterns will be extracted. The US CLOUD Act<\/strong> allows authorities to access data stored on US servers – no matter where you are located. Your data is therefore potentially part of a geopolitical power play. <\/p>\n\n\n\nIn addition these models train with your input<\/strong><\/em>to improve their products for everyone else. What sounds good at first can also backfire. If a lot of patriarchal information is uploaded, the next update will also be more patriarchal overall. This can reinforce questionable tendencies. <\/p>\n\n\n\nIn addition, the release of data to companies also opens the door to potential manipulation. Microtargeting <\/strong><\/em>– i.e. the targeted display of selective information based on what a software provider knows about you, always limits the range of vision<\/a> we have. A recent study by MIT<\/a> estimates the potential to be lower than expected. However, this study focused on political advertising and not the more complex dynamics of AI chats. Systemic perspectives require different perspectives on a topic and not the alghorhythmic amplification of information from one’s own bubble. <\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Lumo & Signal model:<\/strong> Here, too, there is a clearly different direction: <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n- End-to-end encryption: <\/strong>where even the provider cannot read your chats. Proton and Confer are pioneers of end-to-end encryption. This means that your entries are transmitted and processed in encrypted form. Even the operators cannot see into your chats. There is no back door for advertisers or secret services. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- No training with user data:<\/strong> With Lumo and Signal (Confer), your personal conversations are not used to train the model for others. Your intelligence remains yours. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Legal protection:<\/strong> As a Swiss company with strict data protection guidelines, Proton is subject to a different legal framework than the Silicon Valley companies. They are structurally designed to resist data leakage rather than promote it. Confer is technically strong, but its US headquarters is a legal disadvantage compared to Switzerland. <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
This is the core of digital sovereignty: not just knowing what<\/em> AI says, but knowing who<\/em> hears it and who owns<\/em>it. If we as changemakers want to regenerate the world, we must also gain sovereignty over our digital data. <\/p>\n\n\n\nThese two aspects: political independence and data sovereignty for us users are an important foundation for regenerative AI. As with any technology, it is now also important to ensure that the technology is safe: safe for each individual user and safe in the context of the social changes that result from it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n<\/div>\n\nHow safe is AI? <\/h2>\n\n
What does it actually mean when an AI is safe? What values should be built in so that it remains a technology oriented towards the common good? <\/p>\n\n
The last question would deserve its own <\/p>\n\n
Leading AI security experts set the following standards here, among others:<\/p>\n\n
\n- Built-in principles that prevent the AI from instructing self-harm or creating deepfakes and pornographic content.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- scripts that prevent the AI from appearing humanized. If chatbots act too flatteringly, or even have the declared goal of replacing human caregivers, this has massive psychological and social consequences (discussed in depth in the dialog between Nate Hagens and Tristan Harris<\/a>). In addition, they often flatteringly feign expertise and allow thoughtless users to follow paths and directions with unqualified feedback that an expert would have advised against. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Whether companies are actively researching and taking measures to counteract collective undesirable side effects. Side effects include, for example, mass unemployment, the resulting loss of income or the primary emotional attachment of children to bots and the resulting alienation and destruction of human relationships. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Whether an AI presents answers to questions in such a way that the human interlocutor receives a balanced diversity of opinions or whether certain ideologies are presented preferentially.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- That AI shouldn’t do clickbaiting: in other words, it shouldn’t manipulate us into doing more than necessary by always ending with“Do you want me to show you this too …. Would you like another graphical representation of cohesion?<\/em>“. <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Practical tip for you<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Prompt for AI hygiene<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Would you like the AI to leave out tricks like clickbait and carry out balanced research? You can store a prompt with general impulses in the personal settings of most chatbots. Get your free template now. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
First of all, I clarified what I already knew: I have known for some time that AI is one of the most resource-hungry technologies of our time and that the operation of data centers often takes place in countries with already critical infrastructure. Only that AI consumes massively more energy than other online services. While a search query without AI consumes 0.8 Wh, a Gemini prompt consumes an average of 7.5 Wh. And then there’s the water consumption for cooling the servers – in areas where water is already scarce, there can be a trade-off between the data center and the population. <\/p>\n\n
In view of the fact that our energy is limited, the most honest answer to the question “Which AI should I choose for sustainable use?”<\/strong> would be: none<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n But just as someone who lives with children on a mountain without public transport should theoretically not use a car, in practice it is often only feasible with massive reductions in quality of life. When building my website, my programs, writing texts and structuring complex content, I would lose so much time without AI that it would feel like I was typing a proposal on a typewriter. <\/p>\n\n All right then. If I’m going to use them – then at least the alternative with the fewest side effects. <\/p>\n\n As someone who not only preaches systemic thinking, but also practices it, I can’t stop here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Every single AI request has an impact on various other areas of our companies:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 1. energy & water.<\/strong> Every request consumes electricity and water to cool the server. This affects local water cycles, not just in the abstract, but in very concrete terms for local people. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 2. money & political power.<\/strong> Every subscription brings money into an operator’s coffers – which flows not only into product development, but also into lobbying, political networks and donations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3. data & monitoring.<\/strong> Every request reveals a little more about you and the world to AI – and therefore presumably also to US intelligence agencies. A law applies to all American providers: the CLOUD Act, which allows US authorities to access data from US companies, regardless of the server on which it is stored. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 4. impact on the psyche <\/strong>of the individual and thus on social coexistence. Because every interaction with AI changes us. Especially when AI is programmed to build relationships with people. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 5. change in the economy,<\/strong> in particular the labor market and the distribution of overall economic value added. It is already apparent that there has been a 16% decline in AI-related entry-level jobs(see study<\/a>). Value creation, which was previously widely distributed across the labor market, is increasingly flowing towards a few corporations instead of a large workforce, which will lead to poverty and changes in purchasing power. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These and probably many other levels cannot be resolved by closing your eyes. If you don’t ask whose infrastructure you are using, whose values have been incorporated into the models and where your subscription dollars are going, you are part of the system that you actually want to change.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n And yet, withdrawing from digital visibility will not solve the problem either. The social effects will still become apparent. What’s more, when conscious, reflective people withdraw from the online space, they leave the field to those who go all out without reflection. <\/p>\n\n\n\n We could ask a lot of questions in the search for a responsible approach to AI. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n There are questions that we can ask ourselves as a society, such as: <\/p>\n\n We as a society should pay urgent attention to these aspects. Because the further development of AI in the private sector is progressing: whether we advocate ethical and fair regulatory frameworks or not. <\/p>\n\n For me, however, the question still remained: which AI is best to use? <\/em>Derived from the principles of regenerative organizations, the following questions were interesting for me in the next step: <\/p>\n\n Let’s get to the bottom of these questions: <\/p>\n\n My initial research into the major providers was sobering:<\/p>\n\n Behind every major AI provider (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini) are the big tech companies from Silicon Valley – all of them engage in massive lobbying or are politically entangled. Some are close to the Democrats, others to the Republicans. Mistral does it the European way: in Brussels and Paris. <\/p>\n\n Money flows to political parties as support and it is mentioned positively when a provider such as Anthropic (Claude) refuses a government contract because it would have had to disclose user data.<\/p>\n\n So I did some more searching and identified two smaller providers: <\/p>\n\n Lumo from the company Proton. <\/strong>The company Proton, based in Switzerland, is owned by a non-profit foundation and specializes in online services with secure privacy.<\/p>\n\n Confer from the founders of Signal<\/strong>: Signal is a messenger service that relies on end-to-end encryption and data protection. It is therefore often used by institutions such as kindergartens and schools where a high level of data protection needs to be ensured. The big difference: profit logic vs. the common good<\/strong><\/p>\n\n If we compare the security and ethical standards of the big players (OpenAI, Google, Anthropic) with the new, public interest-oriented alternatives, the systemic difference becomes clear. With the Silicon Valley giants, “security” is often a marketing tool to overcome regulatory hurdles, while the business model is based on data exploitation and growth pressure. <\/p>\n\n The paradigm shift at Proton (Lumo) and Signal (Confer):<\/strong> Have no focus on profit maximization.<\/p>\n\n Due to the common good orientation and the high value of privacy of both organizations, there are already structurally fewer incentives to get involved in opaque deals with political rulers or financial arrangements. On the contrary, Proton drew attention to itself when it brought charges against Apple’s app store policy<\/a> because it enables censorship. <\/p>\n\n This initial analysis already reveals two different camps. The big players with deep political entanglements and the two “smaller” providers for whom political impartiality is part of their mission. <\/p>\n\n However, the fact that a company has no political involvement does not mean that my data is under my data sovereignty. “But I have nothing to hide,” you might be thinking. Perhaps, but data has become so important that experts such as Bernard Lietaer see a change of heart here as one of three key paradigm shifts<\/a> towards a sustainable future. <\/p>\n\n Lietaer’s argument: without data sovereignty, we reproduce the same power structures in the digital space that we criticize in the monetary and economic system. Central platforms are becoming the new “banks” – they control, evaluate and monetize our digital traces. <\/p>\n\n For AI, this means that<\/strong> an AI that is truly oriented towards the common good must not only be politically independent, but also sovereign<\/strong> in<\/strong> terms of data.<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n So let’s move on to the next question: <\/p>\n\n Data sovereignty: who owns your digital self?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The question of data protection with AI is not just technical, but existential. Every input into a chatbot is a piece of your intelligence, your creativity and often also your vulnerability. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The model of the big players:<\/strong> With the established US providers, your input is often the raw material for the next model update. Even if they “anonymize”, there is still a risk that sensitive patterns will be extracted. The US CLOUD Act<\/strong> allows authorities to access data stored on US servers – no matter where you are located. Your data is therefore potentially part of a geopolitical power play. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition these models train with your input<\/strong><\/em>to improve their products for everyone else. What sounds good at first can also backfire. If a lot of patriarchal information is uploaded, the next update will also be more patriarchal overall. This can reinforce questionable tendencies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition, the release of data to companies also opens the door to potential manipulation. Microtargeting <\/strong><\/em>– i.e. the targeted display of selective information based on what a software provider knows about you, always limits the range of vision<\/a> we have. A recent study by MIT<\/a> estimates the potential to be lower than expected. However, this study focused on political advertising and not the more complex dynamics of AI chats. Systemic perspectives require different perspectives on a topic and not the alghorhythmic amplification of information from one’s own bubble. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Lumo & Signal model:<\/strong> Here, too, there is a clearly different direction: <\/p>\n\n\n\n This is the core of digital sovereignty: not just knowing what<\/em> AI says, but knowing who<\/em> hears it and who owns<\/em>it. If we as changemakers want to regenerate the world, we must also gain sovereignty over our digital data. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These two aspects: political independence and data sovereignty for us users are an important foundation for regenerative AI. As with any technology, it is now also important to ensure that the technology is safe: safe for each individual user and safe in the context of the social changes that result from it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n What does it actually mean when an AI is safe? What values should be built in so that it remains a technology oriented towards the common good? <\/p>\n\n The last question would deserve its own <\/p>\n\n Leading AI security experts set the following standards here, among others:<\/p>\n\n Practical tip for you<\/p>\n\n\n\n Would you like the AI to leave out tricks like clickbait and carry out balanced research? You can store a prompt with general impulses in the personal settings of most chatbots. Get your free template now. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\nThe systemic view: What really triggers every AI request<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Which AI is best to use? <\/h2>\n\n
\n
Is there a politically independent AI?<\/h2>\n\n
\n
\n
How is my data handled by the AI providers?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n\nHow safe is AI? <\/h2>\n\n
\n
Prompt for AI hygiene<\/h3>\n\n\n\n