AI IS BURNING THE PLANNET!!
-
So is AI useless and just a bubble that will pop, or will it explode exponentially?
It can't be both.
When talking about the environment people say it will explode and burn the planet, but in the same breath they will say it's useless and just a bubble
it will grow exponentially until it pops and then will progress normally in a way that is actually useful. that is what the term "bubble" means in this context.
-
"It's just the corner of the fireworks store that's on fire, I don't see what you're concerned about"
AI power growth is projected to grow exponentially for a service a lot of people view as morally reprehensible and actively harmful
Spencer Weart identified the dangers of global warming in the 50s, we ignored the warnings and now people and entire species are dying. Excuse us for trying to prevent accelerating the problem
wrote last edited by [email protected]AI power growth is projected to grow exponentially for a service a lot of people view as morally reprehensible and actively harmful
And this is a lie altman is telling to get more money.
It's not scaling. GPT-5 is making it more obvious, but the ML research community has known this for some time. Tech projected to take off (like bitnet and more sparse attention/inference schemes), on the other hand, will lower power usage enough for phone inference and such.
-
Lol how is this a fair comparison? 10 mins of watching 4k vs 1 AI question does not seem equivalent at all. Like you could change the quantities and make the comparison look as bad as you want. Why not compare 1 min of 4k video vs asking AI 1,000 questions? Why not compare 1 hr of 4k video to 10 AI questions? When you're changing the variables around between comparisons like that then the comparison is worthless.
Besides that, the environmentally damaging part of AI isn't asking it questions, it's training the models themselves. Training AI uses huge resource consuming supercomputers and can take days.
I searched for how much data 4k streaming used and my browser gave me an AI-generated answer! Now I feel bad.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I’m down with the anti-beef and anti-Bitcoin sentiment, I can even get into the anti-travel argument (we need high speed rail) but saying AI is less harmful than those? Please.
-
Cool genetic fallacy, brah.
the origin of the information is very relevant to the information, considering we are discussing the host of the information being the proverbial nazi bar. you're committing the fallacy fallacy.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Is Sam paying you enough to embarrass yourself like this?
-
the origin of the information is very relevant to the information, considering we are discussing the host of the information being the proverbial nazi bar. you're committing the fallacy fallacy.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.
Where is the claim of a false conclusion?
You're just proving you don't understand the fallacy.considering we are discussing the host of the information being the proverbial nazi bar
Source: Nazi bar
The irrelevance & irrationality of the objection to the credibility of the graph is being ridiculed.
It's basically
I don't like that source, because with a few degrees of separation irrelevant to the truth of anything I can relate something else to Nazis.
Pretty much anything can relate irrelevantly to Nazis: they express ideas in the same language, use the same internet, breathe the same air.
By that logic, we should reject sources in any language, online system, or atmosphere Nazis have touched.
Where are those objections?
Why are you using Nazi-tainted language, internet, and air?Where are the objections to the credibility of tweets often reposted here?
By arguing against open media usable by anyone because villains have posted some articles we need to take effort to locate & read, they're basically claiming we need to be babied & nannied by having content we dislike excluded for us, because we can't be expected to do that ourselves.
The expectation is patronizing.If the concern is ad revenue, substack doesn't work that way: revenue is subscription-based on commission fees charged to writers.
No one gets revenue from free articles: if anything, freeloaders cost substack bandwidth. -
This post did not contain any content.
Traveling
I don't think my legs are gonna cause that much soil erosion...
-
This post did not contain any content.
Reproducing is the most substantial drain to the environment, and people with AI girl/boyfriends tend to excel at avoiding that.
-
This post did not contain any content.
This is true, but i think any obe of them woukd fuck us.
-
Lol how is this a fair comparison? 10 mins of watching 4k vs 1 AI question does not seem equivalent at all. Like you could change the quantities and make the comparison look as bad as you want. Why not compare 1 min of 4k video vs asking AI 1,000 questions? Why not compare 1 hr of 4k video to 10 AI questions? When you're changing the variables around between comparisons like that then the comparison is worthless.
Besides that, the environmentally damaging part of AI isn't asking it questions, it's training the models themselves. Training AI uses huge resource consuming supercomputers and can take days.
AIBros have to come up with anything to downplay how awful their waifu is.
