-131
Why using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment (andymasley.substack.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 37 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I think most people would argue 1-3% of datacenter use is still a significant global pollution factor that is a problem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -26 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Fair, but people are shouting that AI is destroying the planet, and pretending like it's worse than cars or beef or flights.

    Which weakens actuall reasons to be anti-AI

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The problem is all those other things are useful, unlike AI. AI is a gimmick and a distraction. It wasn't so bad when it was a novelty being experimented with, but now that corporations have decided it's the hot new thing and are racing each other to find the most pointless places to cram it in it's out of hand. It's approached fundamentally wrong, instead of looking at a problem and asking "could AI help with this?" companies are starting with AI and then asking "now what problems can we invent to justify using this?". The result is a bunch of power gets wasted solving problems that aren't actually problems or could have been solved much more efficiently in traditional ways, and yes that's bad for the environment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Beef is useful? You could just eat chicken and other meats instead. And you be saving the environment 100x more than not using AI

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Chicken is not beef. Pork is not beef. Fish is certainly not beef. I hate chicken. Pork isn't bad but can be hit or miss. The only meat I hate more than chicken is fish. So no, I can't just eat other meats. Even if that wasn't the case there are also people who are allergic to chicken. We had one of our friends over recently and we have to make sure nothing we serve has chicken in it because of their allergy.

    You're also missing the point entirely. I neither need nor want AI. Nobody needs AI. 90% of what AI is used for now could be done without AI using half the power and just as quickly. It's a solution in search of a problem and that's fundamentally the wrong way to do things. All this AI crap is purely being driven by marketing departments that are just frothing at the mouth to find some way to justify slapping "AI" into their ads.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago

    You can easily replace Beef in your diet with foods that aren't as bad for the environment. It won't taste the same but so what.

    You can't cry that nobody needs AI but then in the same breath say that you can't replace beef Something 100x worse for the environment.

    Yes nobody NEEDS AI, just like nobody NEEDS beef, or to take a flight, but it's still a nice to have and useful to a lot of people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent