Artificial intelligence is no longer a discreet tool humming in the background of tech companies. It is a sprawling industrial system with physical, economic and legal side effects that researchers now say are reshaping every sector of society, from power grids and hiring pipelines to courtrooms and climate policy. The most alarming finding is not that AI is powerful, but that its hidden costs are scaling just as fast as its capabilities.
As I trace the latest research and expert warnings, a single pattern emerges: the side effect that matters most is not a single bug or failure mode, but the way AI concentrates risk across energy, labor, law and information at the same time. That convergence is what makes the current boom feel less like a software upgrade and more like a structural shock to how economies, institutions and individuals work.
The overlooked side effect that ties the AI boom together
Researchers now argue that the most consequential side effect of AI is its physical and social footprint, which is expanding far beyond the lab. Massive models require dense clusters of servers, new transmission lines and water for cooling, while automated systems quietly rewrite job descriptions, legal liability and even the way misinformation spreads. In recent work, Researchers describe this as an “alarming side effect” that is “Changing every sector of society,” a phrase that captures how energy systems, workplaces and public services are being pulled into the same transformation.
What makes this side effect so difficult to manage is that it cuts across traditional policy silos. Environmental advocates now find themselves debating chip design and data center siting, labor economists are modeling how generative tools alter entry-level work, and corporate lawyers are rewriting contracts around algorithmic decisions. A separate group of Experts has gone further, warning that this side effect is “potentially hazardous” and “dangerously understudied,” particularly in its impact on health, water and local environments around AI infrastructure.
AI’s exploding appetite for power, water and hardware
The most visible manifestation of this side effect is the physical scale of AI infrastructure. Training and running large models now demands industrial quantities of electricity and cooling, turning data centers into some of the hungriest facilities on national grids. A recent fact-check of federal and international data found that U.S. data centers already used 183 terawatt-hours of electricity in a single year, roughly equivalent to the entire annual electricity use of Pakistan, and that figure is poised to climb as AI workloads dominate server farms.
Researchers reviewing the environmental footprint of AI describe a cascade of “Hidden Costs” that includes energy demand, e-waste and the materials needed for advanced chips, and they argue that any credible path forward must focus on concrete Solutions, Gaps, Future Directions such as more efficient hardware, better cooling and circular supply chains. Others point out that the data centers that power AI “consume vast and increasing amounts of electricity,” and suggest that engineers should look to the human brain’s efficiency for inspiration, a comparison that underscores how far current systems are from biological benchmarks, as highlighted in analysis of data centers that consume vast and increasing amounts of electricity.
The climate contradiction at the heart of AI
AI is often sold as a climate ally, promising smarter grids, optimized logistics and better climate modeling, yet its own emissions profile is becoming impossible to ignore. Training a single frontier model can require as much electricity as thousands of households use in a year, and the ongoing inference workload multiplies that impact across millions of daily queries. Analysts now argue that, “At the same time, AI could be seen as a key culprit in climate change,” because the energy and resources required to create and run these systems risk locking in a At the worse environmental situation than before if they are not paired with aggressive decarbonization.
This contradiction is especially stark in regions that still rely heavily on fossil fuels for electricity. Every new AI data center that connects to a coal-heavy grid effectively bakes more emissions into each chatbot response or image generation, even as the same tools are used to design solar farms or optimize wind output. Environmental advocates who first raised concerns about local water use and air quality around server clusters now warn that the AI boom could undermine the industry’s own clean energy narrative, echoing the alarm from Changing that the side effects of AI could undercut clean energy efforts if left unchecked.
Bias, misinformation and the social risks baked into AI systems
Even as the physical footprint grows, the social side effects of AI are becoming harder to separate from everyday life. Recommendation engines and generative models now shape what people see, believe and buy, while automated decision systems influence who gets a loan, a job interview or a police visit. Researchers at Virginia Tech describe “The Bad” side of this technology as rooted in “Potential bias from incomplete data,” warning that AI and learning algorithms are “a powerful tool that can easily be misused” when training sets are skewed or unrepresentative, which leads to The Bad, Potential outcomes where systems become biased and unfair.
Those concerns now sit alongside a growing list of more visible harms. Analysts catalog “Dangers of Artificial Intelligence” that range from “Automation-spurred job loss” to “Deepfakes and social manipulation” and “Privacy” violations, arguing that these risks are no longer hypothetical but already visible in political campaigns, workplace surveillance and online scams, as detailed in assessments of Dangers of Artificial Intelligence. The same generative tools that can draft a business plan in seconds can also fabricate a convincing video of a public figure or scrape intimate data from social media, and the speed at which these capabilities spread often outpaces the ability of regulators or platforms to respond.
The new economics of labor and value
Behind the headlines about chatbots and copilots sits a deeper shift in how labor and value are organized. AI agents are no longer just passive tools that wait for instructions; they are increasingly autonomous systems that can schedule meetings, negotiate prices, write code and even trigger other software, effectively acting as digital employees. Analysts describe this as “The New Economics of Labor and Value,” arguing that AI “Agents and the Global Workforce” are changing which skills economies reward and how companies structure teams, a shift captured in research on The New Economics of Labor and Value, Agents and the Global Workforce.
At the same time, more traditional analyses of the job market show how quickly these dynamics can ripple through payrolls. One widely cited estimate from An April report by Goldman Sachs Research concluded that AI “could expose the equivalent of 300 m” full-time jobs to some degree of automation, a figure that underscores how broad the impact could be even if only a fraction of those roles are fully displaced. For workers, the side effect is not just the risk of replacement, but the pressure to adapt to a labor market where value is increasingly tied to how well humans can direct, critique and complement machine agents.
Entry-level workers on the front line
The burden of this transition is not evenly shared. Early evidence suggests that the first wave of disruption is hitting those with the least experience and bargaining power, particularly younger workers trying to break into white-collar fields. A first-of-its-kind Stanford study found that AI is starting to have a “significant and disproportionate impact” on entry-level workers in the United States, particularly in roles that involve routine analysis, drafting or customer support that can be partially automated by large language models.
Industry leaders are now openly acknowledging how severe that impact could become. Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei told Axios that he believed AI could eliminate half of all entry-level white-collar jobs within five years, and warned that unemployment could spike to between 10% and 20% if policymakers and companies do not manage the transition. That forecast, combined with the broader “Automation” risk flagged in assessments of Automation-spurred job loss, suggests that the side effect of AI on early career pathways may be one of the most destabilizing forces in the coming decade.
Skills, retraining and the scramble to stay employable
For workers who are not immediately displaced, the AI boom is still rewriting what it takes to stay employable. Routine and data-driven tasks are increasingly handled by software, which means that human roles are shifting toward oversight, strategy, relationship management and creative problem solving. Analysts note that “AI is reshaping the skills landscape across various industries,” and that as Machines take on more routine and data-driven tasks, demand grows for workers who can interpret model outputs, design prompts and integrate AI into workflows in a rapidly evolving world.
This shift is forcing universities, training providers and employers to rethink curricula and on-the-job learning. Traditional degrees that once guaranteed a stable career now need to be paired with continuous upskilling in areas like data literacy, algorithmic thinking and ethical oversight. The same “New Economics of Labor and Value” that elevates AI agents also elevates human skills that are hardest to codify, such as cross-cultural communication and complex negotiation, reinforcing the argument that the most resilient workers will be those who can treat AI as a collaborator rather than a competitor, a theme that runs through analyses of skills that economies value most.
The legal shockwave hitting businesses
As AI systems move from back-office tools to customer-facing products, they are dragging corporate law into unfamiliar territory. Companies that embed generative models into chatbots, recommendation engines or physical devices now face questions about who is responsible when an algorithm makes a harmful suggestion, discriminates against a user or plagiarizes someone else’s work. Legal analysts argue that AI “Is Creating” a “New Legal Reality for Businesses,” warning executives that “You Can” not “Afford” to “Ignore It,” because product liability, intellectual property and consumer protection rules are all being reinterpreted in light of algorithmic decision making, as detailed in guidance on a New Legal Reality for Businesses, You Can, Afford, Ignore It.
One of the most striking aspects of this legal shift is how quickly it can turn a technical misstep into a reputational crisis. A flawed training dataset that bakes in bias, a chatbot that offers dangerous medical advice or a model that hallucinates defamatory claims can all trigger lawsuits, regulatory scrutiny and public backlash. The same reports that warn about “Deepfakes and” social manipulation and “Privacy” violations highlight how a single misleading AI-generated image or leaked dataset can undo years of brand-building, reinforcing the argument that legal risk is now a core part of any AI deployment strategy, as outlined in assessments of Deepfakes and privacy harms.
Why researchers say this side effect is dangerously understudied
Despite the scale of these impacts, the overarching side effect that links them together remains underexamined in policy debates. Environmental and health advocates warn that the rush to deploy AI has outpaced systematic study of its cumulative effects on water systems, local air quality, mental health and democratic resilience. In their warning about a “potentially hazardous side effect of AI boom,” a coalition of Experts stressed that “this issue has been dangerously understudied,” particularly in communities that host energy-intensive data centers or rely on vulnerable water systems.
Researchers reviewing AI’s environmental footprint reach a similar conclusion, noting that while there is growing awareness of energy use, far less attention has been paid to e-waste, rare earth mining and the full lifecycle of hardware. Their call for targeted Solutions and identification of key “Gaps” and “Future Directions” is essentially a plea for policymakers to treat AI not just as a software innovation but as a new industrial sector with all the regulatory scrutiny that implies. Until that happens, the side effect reshaping every sector will remain less a managed transition than an uncontrolled experiment, with the most vulnerable workers, communities and ecosystems bearing the brunt of the risk.
More from MorningOverview