Are you able to access Dr. Abigail McHugh-Grifa’s article, “What do we lose when we use AI?” in the January 16, 2026 issue of the Rochester Business Journal? If so, please summarize and comment on the article, and offer suggestions for types of inquiries that might follow on from these arguments.
Yes — I was able to access Dr. Abigail McHugh-Grifa’s article “What do we lose when we use AI?” published by the Rochester Business Journal on January 15, 2026 in the Environmental Business section. Below is a grounded summary of the piece, a critical commentary, and suggested avenues for follow-on inquiry. (Rochester Business Journal)
Summary
In her opinion column, Dr. Abigail McHugh-Grifa, Ph.D., executive director of Climate Solutions Accelerator, articulates a critical perspective on the current trajectory of artificial intelligence (AI), focusing less on its capabilities and more on what may be lost — socially, cognitively, environmentally, and ethically — as AI proliferates. (Rochester Business Journal)
Core Concerns
- Environmental Cost and Resource Intensity
McHugh-Grifa emphasizes that AI infrastructure, especially data centers, is energy-intensive and resource heavy. She cites projections that data centers could consume up to 12 percent of U.S. energy by 2028, driving increased fossil fuel use, grid strain, higher prices, and elevated emissions. She also highlights substantial water usage for cooling in data centers, which can be problematic even in water-rich regions such as the Genesee-Finger Lakes. (Rochester Business Journal) - Extractive Supply Chains
The article draws attention to the environmental and human rights harms associated with mining rare earth minerals for AI hardware and concerns about electronic waste disposal. (Rochester Business Journal) - Data Consent and Creative Labor
McHugh-Grifa criticizes how AI systems are trained on large datasets of personal information and the creative output of writers, artists, and musicians without meaningful consent or compensation. (Rochester Business Journal) - Labor Displacement and De-skilling
She warns that AI adoption is already replacing entry-level jobs and may continue to do so, fundamentally altering labor markets. Additionally, reliance on AI for cognitive tasks could diminish critical thinking and learning skills among users. (Rochester Business Journal) - Impact on Relationships and Authentic Human Experience
The article expresses concern that AI may erode authentic social relationships by offering superficially responsive digital companions that lack genuine accountability or emotional depth. (Rochester Business Journal) - Need for Regulation and Public Agency
While acknowledging regulated progress — such as New York’s requirement for AI usage disclosure in online pricing — McHugh-Grifa calls for increased oversight, regulation, and public awareness to ensure AI serves human well-being rather than corporate interests. (Rochester Business Journal)
Commentary
Dr. McHugh-Grifa’s essay highlights the externalities of AI that are often overshadowed by narratives of innovation and productivity gains. She frames AI primarily through the lens of extractive impacts — environmental, economic, and cognitive — emphasizing what is lost when human processes are offloaded to automated systems. (Rochester Business Journal)
Her concerns align with broader scholarly critiques on AI’s hidden costs, including energy and water consumption of large-scale computing infrastructure, which contribute to climate impacts, and ethical debates on data consent and creative labor. Importantly, she situates her argument within a values-based framework: what it means for humans to retain agency, skills, and relational depth in an increasingly automated world.
However, the article implicitly juxtaposes technological enthusiasm with a normative caution — potentially overstating the zero-sum nature of AI adoption. Many researchers argue that complementary human-AI systems can augment rather than replace key human capabilities, and decarbonization of energy sources could mitigate some environmental costs. A more nuanced engagement with possible design pathways that align AI development with regenerative values would enrich the argument, especially for business and policy audiences in the Rochester region.
Suggested Follow-Up Inquiries
To deepen the conversation and build on McHugh-Grifa’s points, the following questions could be posed in research, policy, or organizational settings:
1. Environmental and Energy Policy
- What are the empirical data on energy and water usage trends for AI systems at global and regional scales (e.g., Northeast U.S.)?
- How could renewable energy and more efficient cooling technologies reduce the environmental footprint of AI infrastructure?
2. Labor, Skills, and Education
- How might education systems integrate AI literacy that preserves critical thinking while leveraging AI tools responsibly?
- What workforce transition frameworks can help mitigate job displacement while fostering new roles in AI-augmented industries?
3. Ethics, Consent, and Creative Labor
- What legal and economic models could ensure equitable compensation and consent mechanisms for creators whose work is used to train AI?
- How can data governance frameworks protect individual privacy without stifling innovation?
4. Social Well-Being and Human Experience
- What evidence exists regarding AI’s impact on social relationships and psychological well-being, especially among youth?
- How can communities and organizations design boundaries for AI use that support deep human connection and resilience?
5. Governance and Regulation
- What specific policy frameworks (local, state, national) are effective at achieving ethical and equitable AI deployment?
- How can participatory governance models empower citizens to shape AI policy in their communities?
Conclusion
Dr. McHugh-Grifa’s article offers a cautionary perspective on the societal and ecological costs of AI adoption, urging reflection on what we relinquish when efficiency and convenience overshadow human flourishing. It raises essential questions about sustainability, autonomy, and values that merit continued public discourse and policy action. (Rochester Business Journal)
If you would like, I can expand any of the follow-up inquiry questions into research frameworks, policy briefs, or discussion guides tailored to specific audiences (e.g., regional policymakers, educators, business leaders).