I already agreed some things deserve zero tolerance, so obviously there’s a line. If AI killed someone or gave the user shooting pains every ten times it was used then I would call it a failed attempt to make a tool. But the relevance of this escapes me.
You are conflating environmental costs of AI with willful destruction to make money.
AI data centers don’t need to use giant amounts of water. They do because assholes can get away with saying “fuck the people and environment” by paying off other assholes in governing positions to not regulate them.
AI data center’s electricity usage is not a problem either. We will see a massive increase in demand anyway as electrification is actually a big step in decarbonisation. What is a problem are again assholes in the fossil fuel industry that lobby the already mentioned corrupt assholes in government to fight renewable energy and its infrastructure that is clean and available in abundance.
If you believe that AI is a cause for the problem and not just a pretense and that they would not have found (actually manufacture, just like they manufactured this insane “Ai will solve everything”-bubble) another reason (or dozens) to burn the planet for their profit anyway, you really lost the plot.
So, bring the numbers. Where’s this environmental catastrophe resulting from the use of chatbots?
My $20 per month Claude Code subscription uses about $11 worth of electricity to generate my replies - our damn air conditioner is using near $11 per day to keep the house cool in the summer these days.
Evidence would make that an argument. Without it what you have is a hypothesis. I have a hypothesis that people die from the knock-on effects of social media, but here we are doing it without demonizing ourselves.
Fair enough. I’m not going to follow up with all that just for this comment thread. At least we can agree that some things are bad enough to justify not using.
Some things do, but work technique isn’t one of them.
What about a tool that killed someone every time you used it? Or every ten times you used it? There’s a line somewhere, right?
I already agreed some things deserve zero tolerance, so obviously there’s a line. If AI killed someone or gave the user shooting pains every ten times it was used then I would call it a failed attempt to make a tool. But the relevance of this escapes me.
My argument is that the environmental costs of AI, not to mention the knock-on effects of the societal change it incurs, lead to people dying.
You are conflating environmental costs of AI with willful destruction to make money.
AI data centers don’t need to use giant amounts of water. They do because assholes can get away with saying “fuck the people and environment” by paying off other assholes in governing positions to not regulate them.
AI data center’s electricity usage is not a problem either. We will see a massive increase in demand anyway as electrification is actually a big step in decarbonisation. What is a problem are again assholes in the fossil fuel industry that lobby the already mentioned corrupt assholes in government to fight renewable energy and its infrastructure that is clean and available in abundance.
If you believe that AI is a cause for the problem and not just a pretense and that they would not have found (actually manufacture, just like they manufactured this insane “Ai will solve everything”-bubble) another reason (or dozens) to burn the planet for their profit anyway, you really lost the plot.
So, bring the numbers. Where’s this environmental catastrophe resulting from the use of chatbots?
My $20 per month Claude Code subscription uses about $11 worth of electricity to generate my replies - our damn air conditioner is using near $11 per day to keep the house cool in the summer these days.
Evidence would make that an argument. Without it what you have is a hypothesis. I have a hypothesis that people die from the knock-on effects of social media, but here we are doing it without demonizing ourselves.
Fair enough. I’m not going to follow up with all that just for this comment thread. At least we can agree that some things are bad enough to justify not using.