I don’t think you understand that the “so I can” part implies you. By virtue of even posting, YOU are pushing datacenter demand. These comments don’t just live in the ether. The whole point is you are cherry picking what you are upset about based on what is trending (as you even mentioned). The point being you are MORE upset about the lesser evil, not that one is justified evil and the other isn’t.
If you enjoy the Two Wrongs Make Right fallacy, then I think you’ll love the Special Pleading fallacy.
By virtue of even posting, YOU are pushing datacenter demand. These comments don’t just live in the ether.
I write software for a living. There’s an enormous difference between a text-based service that functionally runs as a primitive CRUD and a compute-heavy service like LLM inferencing. The latter runs on servers that individually consume multiple kilowatts while the former can run on a raspberry pi but gains efficiency by sharing a server that consumes maybe 1kW with dozens of other people. Heck, Lemmy doesn’t even need to do video transcoding like all the toxic social media sites do.
The point being you are MORE upset about the lesser evil, not that one is justified evil and the other isn’t.
No, people are upset about all the evils. Being more or less upset about one or the other is irrelevant. You’re just choosing to cherry pick one thing that everyone who’s upset should ignore.
Can run on a raspberry pi and does run on a raspberry pi are two different things. I don’t think raspberry pis are the solution here. I’m not cherry picking either as both are clear evils. That is the point. Current non-AI datacenters are using more power in total than AI datacenters. That may (and likely will) change, but the argument that AI datacenters are destroying the environment when the other is destroying it even more (but let’s ignore that one) is moronic by nature.
That by definition isn’t cherry picking. It’s pointing out the logical fallacy in popular thought.
I work in devops. These two things are more alike then you think.
Ok, so despite everything you said, it is NOT the environmental impact that matters. What matters (at least now) is the number of services it provides. I hate to say it but “You’re just choosing to cherry pick one thing that everyone who’s upset should ignore.”
This is gonna sound like a broken record here but… https://kbin.earth/m/gaming@beehaw.org/t/3103626/ChatGPT-LLMs-and-Automating-the-Fun-Out-of-Roleplaying-Don-t/comment/14132956#entry-comment-14132956
Let’s be real here: If subject A destroys the environment and subject B destroys the environment to the same degree, why is the quality/quantity of service provided by either the deciding factor to you when you yourself have stated this is a matter of environmental concern? The outcome being the exact same, the path you take to it is irrelevant. That is the most illogical reason to be ok with anything. And this isn’t me putting words in your mouth, this is literally what you have stated in your comment history.
So why is more pollution from subject A acceptable, but less from subject B isn’t?
My response (in response to another comment):
It being drowned out by the advocacy against AI doesn’t mean those voices disappeared, just that there are louder voices now.
You, with the nihilistic doomerism take:
By virtue of even posting, YOU are pushing datacenter demand.
Me, responding to the subject:
people are upset about all the evils. Being more or less upset about one or the other is irrelevant. You’re just choosing to cherry pick one thing that everyone who’s upset should ignore.
What was that about comment history?
Anyway, in response to this:
What matters (at least now) is the number of services it provides.
If you’re looking for things to improve, then you prioritise the places where improvement will have the most effect.
Anyway, if we want to reduce the environmental argument down as much as you are, then we might as well eliminate nearly all life on earth because living creatures produce emissions and consume water. Point is, your counterargument is complete nonsense and reductionist.
People can be upset by multiple things at once despite your best attempts to argue otherwise.
I’m just going to end this here with a final comment:
I know I’m not going to change your mind on this. It doesn’t matter what evidence I provide, you just aren’t ready to have that conversation. And that’s ok.
This has never really been about you. It’s been about all the others. It’s about showing how while there is a lot of AI hype, there is an equal amount of anti-AI hype. Misinformation is misinformation. Doesn’t matter your stance.
We have for 4 years now both simultaneously and perpetually been 3 months away from the AI bubble popping and 3 months away from AI stealing everyone’s job.
So, for those that see this insane comment history, understand as well intentioned as some of these posters are, most everything they say is completely fabricated. They are just passing it along without knowing any better.
“they’re doing bad so I can too”
I don’t think you understand that the “so I can” part implies you. By virtue of even posting, YOU are pushing datacenter demand. These comments don’t just live in the ether. The whole point is you are cherry picking what you are upset about based on what is trending (as you even mentioned). The point being you are MORE upset about the lesser evil, not that one is justified evil and the other isn’t.
If you enjoy the Two Wrongs Make Right fallacy, then I think you’ll love the Special Pleading fallacy.
I write software for a living. There’s an enormous difference between a text-based service that functionally runs as a primitive CRUD and a compute-heavy service like LLM inferencing. The latter runs on servers that individually consume multiple kilowatts while the former can run on a raspberry pi but gains efficiency by sharing a server that consumes maybe 1kW with dozens of other people. Heck, Lemmy doesn’t even need to do video transcoding like all the toxic social media sites do.
No, people are upset about all the evils. Being more or less upset about one or the other is irrelevant. You’re just choosing to cherry pick one thing that everyone who’s upset should ignore.
Can run on a raspberry pi and does run on a raspberry pi are two different things. I don’t think raspberry pis are the solution here. I’m not cherry picking either as both are clear evils. That is the point. Current non-AI datacenters are using more power in total than AI datacenters. That may (and likely will) change, but the argument that AI datacenters are destroying the environment when the other is destroying it even more (but let’s ignore that one) is moronic by nature.
That by definition isn’t cherry picking. It’s pointing out the logical fallacy in popular thought.
I work in devops. These two things are more alike then you think.
Current non-AI datacenters run all of every other service on the internet.
Current AI datacenters run one class of services.
This is like comparing totals vs per capita.
Ok, so despite everything you said, it is NOT the environmental impact that matters. What matters (at least now) is the number of services it provides. I hate to say it but “You’re just choosing to cherry pick one thing that everyone who’s upset should ignore.”
This is gonna sound like a broken record here but… https://kbin.earth/m/gaming@beehaw.org/t/3103626/ChatGPT-LLMs-and-Automating-the-Fun-Out-of-Roleplaying-Don-t/comment/14132956#entry-comment-14132956
Let’s be real here: If subject A destroys the environment and subject B destroys the environment to the same degree, why is the quality/quantity of service provided by either the deciding factor to you when you yourself have stated this is a matter of environmental concern? The outcome being the exact same, the path you take to it is irrelevant. That is the most illogical reason to be ok with anything. And this isn’t me putting words in your mouth, this is literally what you have stated in your comment history.
You:
My response (in response to another comment):
You, with the nihilistic doomerism take:
Me, responding to the subject:
What was that about comment history?
Anyway, in response to this:
If you’re looking for things to improve, then you prioritise the places where improvement will have the most effect.
Anyway, if we want to reduce the environmental argument down as much as you are, then we might as well eliminate nearly all life on earth because living creatures produce emissions and consume water. Point is, your counterargument is complete nonsense and reductionist.
People can be upset by multiple things at once despite your best attempts to argue otherwise.
I’m just going to end this here with a final comment:
I know I’m not going to change your mind on this. It doesn’t matter what evidence I provide, you just aren’t ready to have that conversation. And that’s ok.
This has never really been about you. It’s been about all the others. It’s about showing how while there is a lot of AI hype, there is an equal amount of anti-AI hype. Misinformation is misinformation. Doesn’t matter your stance.
We have for 4 years now both simultaneously and perpetually been 3 months away from the AI bubble popping and 3 months away from AI stealing everyone’s job.
So, for those that see this insane comment history, understand as well intentioned as some of these posters are, most everything they say is completely fabricated. They are just passing it along without knowing any better.