- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Please actually read the article before downvoting me into oblivion, or debunk it before just shouting AI = BAD I’m also against AI for privacy reasons, but can we please stop pretending that it’s destroying the environment.
My point is that people shouting that they care about the environment, while being silent on things like beef or flights etc. are being hypocrites. I’ve seen many people say AI IS BURNING THE PLANNET, when that is simply not true
There is no single one polluter that’s killing the planet, it’s the sum of them all, adding AI into the mix is only making it worse for no reason at all
This is very ignorant/naive take. Imagine how much electricity call-centers with dozens/hundreds of workers use. Now imagine if they all get replaced by AI. Compare electricity usage by AI to that of all work/industries/workers it makes obsolete and then you have a real picture.
You’re out here saying that new technology will safe us, just trust and yet claim I’m having a naive approach. LLMs are not the magic tool to solve everything you think may they are.
I don’t know if it will save us or ruin us, neither I think they can do everything. But even at current point they can do a lot, and there are countless types of work they already are capable of automating significantly (for example, something that took 4 hours now can take 30 minutes, or something that took 10 people now can be done with just 2). And that is definitely something that shouldn’t be ignored in environmental concerns. Network effect might actually be a huge win in terms of electricity and emissions. In terms of economy though, people should at least get UBI or something similar for this to not turn into a total economic collapse.
As others have said, most people that take issue with AI due to its negative impact on the environment will also take issues with those other things. Of course one might argue that to some extent pollution is acceptable for the purpose of producing food, while to a lesser extent for the purpose of powering magical text completion toys.
How is it not true? You’ve agreed that it has a negative impact on the environment. It’s not burning the planet on its own, but its contrubution to the burning is non-negligible and only expected to grow. According to all scientific findings, we have to reduce our carbon footprint, not increase it even further, to make the impact of climate change maybe somehow bearable. Therefore, everything contributing to an increase has to be scrutinised thoroughly as to the value it provides net its impact on pollution. Currently, that calculation results in a net negative value of “AI”.
I think you’ve got a bit of a strawman going here
Those who complain about the environmental impacts of AI almost invariably complain about flights and beef as well
I doubt it’s an honest mistake or simple hypocrisy. You can see that AI is both supposed to be useless and see hugely increased usage. Sure, people can be pretty dumb but this is really heavy.
Well, whatever the reason for this may be… You will certainly not reason these accounts out of posting this stuff with numbers.