AI datacenters do not cause drought. There is no evidence to support that claim. And if you think you do have evidence, I would love to see the source.
And you totally can contain multitudes. People should be like that. But they in practice aren’t. They follow what is trending. For example, if you look through your comment history how many comments will be pertaining to the US meat industry? How many to datacenters?
I would argue that you care a great deal more about one than the other. Which, going back to my original point, why is that 1% more important than the remaining 99% (or specifically the 50% that you care so much about)?
I don’t have evidence on hand, but I have read compelling scholarly articles previously on the matter. Feel free to disregard this discussion point if that’s a dealbreaker.
I would argue that you care a great deal more about one that the other
Your argument would be incorrect, as I have been vegetarian for over 2 decades and vegan for the last 5 years. I’ve just found that trying to sway people online about the meat industry is a fool’s errand, whereas I have had decent success in having constructive conversations about the harms of AI. My meat industry related efforts are focused primarily on face to face interactions.
My stance on AI isn’t based on what’s “trending”, except for the fact that it, as a pretty existential threat in its current trajectory of resource usage, job displacement, and market “growth”, is rapidly starting to infest every aspect of my life. So yes, the trend that AI is following is causing my stance on it to be pertinent to a growing number of conversations.
I’m curious though, what would I have to be doing for you to believe that I’m… I dont know, “allowed”? to talk about AI’s water usage impact?
I’m curious though, what would I have to be doing for you to believe that I’m… I dont know, “allowed”? to talk about AI’s water usage impact?
I would say you are starting to approach an opposing view as treating yours as “wrong thought” when confronted. That is an absolutest method that is only ever used to justify what you think is right and vilify all else. It isn’t a matter of what is “allowed”. There is no restriction to that. But if you put out an idea or belief that can be deconstructed and proven incorrect/incomplete, then people have the right to speak against it.
There are lots of points you can make that are completely valid and evidentiary by nature, but AI water usage isn’t one of them. It has been debunked to point that I would bucket it into the same group that “vaccines cause autism” fit into.
EDIT:
Actually I wanted to point out something about the trending mention. You say you don’t try to sway opinion on the meat industry but you do for AI because you get more traction. That’s called audience alignment and is part of shared identity signaling (used algorithmically to define what is currently trending).
Goodness this is exhausting. I was not talking about literally being allowed to do something, that’s why it is in quotation marks. I was responding to you making assertions about my online “debate footprint” and how you attempted to use my relatively lower rate of discussing the impact of the meat industry online as a way to debunk my assertion. My (rhetorical) question was, how would my online behaviour have had to change for you to be satisfied upon trawling my posting history that I am not against AI for “trending” reasons?
Many claims may or may not have been debunked about AI water usage. My assertion is that its value provided to society is absolutely dwarfed by its footprint. Same can be said of the meat industry, fast fashion, etc. I maintain that stance even at your proposed value of 1% of the total water usage of the US. 1% is a lot when you are talking about the entire country’s consumption vs a single industry.
Your edit is wild. I’m “following trends” because I am selective about where I spend my time and energy based on where I am making the most impact? Would my stance somehow be more valid if I were arguing with brick walls online about other matters and not contributing at all to the causes I care about with that time and energy expenditure? Even if that wasn’t a wild take, its just a genetic fallacy and doesn’t serve to actually move the discussion forward.
Anyway, speaking of spending my time and energy in places I feel I’m actually accomplishing something, we’ve been talking past one another for a while now, so I’m gonna stop replying now. Have a good life.
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.
AI datacenters do not cause drought. There is no evidence to support that claim. And if you think you do have evidence, I would love to see the source.
And you totally can contain multitudes. People should be like that. But they in practice aren’t. They follow what is trending. For example, if you look through your comment history how many comments will be pertaining to the US meat industry? How many to datacenters?
I would argue that you care a great deal more about one than the other. Which, going back to my original point, why is that 1% more important than the remaining 99% (or specifically the 50% that you care so much about)?
I don’t have evidence on hand, but I have read compelling scholarly articles previously on the matter. Feel free to disregard this discussion point if that’s a dealbreaker.
Your argument would be incorrect, as I have been vegetarian for over 2 decades and vegan for the last 5 years. I’ve just found that trying to sway people online about the meat industry is a fool’s errand, whereas I have had decent success in having constructive conversations about the harms of AI. My meat industry related efforts are focused primarily on face to face interactions.
My stance on AI isn’t based on what’s “trending”, except for the fact that it, as a pretty existential threat in its current trajectory of resource usage, job displacement, and market “growth”, is rapidly starting to infest every aspect of my life. So yes, the trend that AI is following is causing my stance on it to be pertinent to a growing number of conversations.
I’m curious though, what would I have to be doing for you to believe that I’m… I dont know, “allowed”? to talk about AI’s water usage impact?
I would say you are starting to approach an opposing view as treating yours as “wrong thought” when confronted. That is an absolutest method that is only ever used to justify what you think is right and vilify all else. It isn’t a matter of what is “allowed”. There is no restriction to that. But if you put out an idea or belief that can be deconstructed and proven incorrect/incomplete, then people have the right to speak against it.
There are lots of points you can make that are completely valid and evidentiary by nature, but AI water usage isn’t one of them. It has been debunked to point that I would bucket it into the same group that “vaccines cause autism” fit into.
EDIT: Actually I wanted to point out something about the trending mention. You say you don’t try to sway opinion on the meat industry but you do for AI because you get more traction. That’s called audience alignment and is part of shared identity signaling (used algorithmically to define what is currently trending).
Goodness this is exhausting. I was not talking about literally being allowed to do something, that’s why it is in quotation marks. I was responding to you making assertions about my online “debate footprint” and how you attempted to use my relatively lower rate of discussing the impact of the meat industry online as a way to debunk my assertion. My (rhetorical) question was, how would my online behaviour have had to change for you to be satisfied upon trawling my posting history that I am not against AI for “trending” reasons?
Many claims may or may not have been debunked about AI water usage. My assertion is that its value provided to society is absolutely dwarfed by its footprint. Same can be said of the meat industry, fast fashion, etc. I maintain that stance even at your proposed value of 1% of the total water usage of the US. 1% is a lot when you are talking about the entire country’s consumption vs a single industry.
Your edit is wild. I’m “following trends” because I am selective about where I spend my time and energy based on where I am making the most impact? Would my stance somehow be more valid if I were arguing with brick walls online about other matters and not contributing at all to the causes I care about with that time and energy expenditure? Even if that wasn’t a wild take, its just a genetic fallacy and doesn’t serve to actually move the discussion forward.
Anyway, speaking of spending my time and energy in places I feel I’m actually accomplishing something, we’ve been talking past one another for a while now, so I’m gonna stop replying now. Have a good life.
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.