Okay but it scales for us. I only follow my actual friends and family and I only want to see what they share, chronologically.

47 minute old account, 40 minute old advert

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 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 confused, it seems we agree with eachother - did you mean to reply to the person I replied to, or were you just adding on to my point? :D

I contain multitudes. I can protest the mass growth of datacentres for other industries as well as for AI.

I hadn’t mentioned water usage, but since you bring it up, AI datacentres are being plopped down willy nilly and sucking up all the water from their local area, causing drought. Thats one stark difference between it and agriculture, which isn’t having the same kind of local effect.

However, the US (and other) agriculture+ industry (again, I contain multitudes) doesn’t get a pass. Estimates vary, but it looks like about 30-50% of US agriculture water usage goes to feed which is destined for livestock for the meat industry. I’d say that a person can be both against AI and an outspoken vegan against the meat industry, wouldn’t you?

Absolutely

No, its worse.

When you steal human created art off the internet you aren’t actively harming the environment. You arguably dont even harm the artist because you would never pay them anyway.

When you use an ai image generator, you are actively harming the environment, and actively harming artists by supporting tools that are trained on their art without consent.

Just use the human art, or something like picrew where people make things specifically for folks to use to make their characters for stuff like vtt

Created their account 7 hours ago and their only posts are these. For sure an ad.

Ok bye

The borderlands series kinda fell off a cliff when they forgot that it, at its core, was a big fuck-you to corpo bullshit. Literally was supposed to be a Mad Max style game. Its been dulled down to fart jokes and edgy humour and trying to capitalize on references and trends, with a shiny package and guns.

Please don’t call me man :)

The cat is “out of the bag” on consuming meat and dairy, plenty of people manage to survive and thrive without em, without much effort at all. I’d personally rather use no LLM than use a local agentic model with poor ethics/environmental impact of its training, even if the latter is better than corpo offerings.

As I alluded to, I’m much happier to see people using local agentic models. Even more so if they happen to be something like Pleias’ approach, with lots of transparency about the data they were trained on. There’s still the environmental concerns behind the resources consumed for the training, but it is about as good as one could hope for at this point if one insists on using LLMs.

Eh, mine added value to the conversation. Your “what a stupid comment” comment made no such effort. So hey, swings and roundabouts!

I dont think local agentic models address the ethical and environmental concerns I have with the training - but its better than the corporate offerings :)

Yes, it is the people who are against the corporate AI offerings who are guilty of groupthink, not me!

Sounds like a fun weekend with my girlfriends

Tbf I’d prefer that to stroking someone when I tried to shove them. Stroking them just isn’t in the realm of possible outcomes when an experienced combatant tries to shove someone.

Anthropic is a different company to openai - its closer to the beginning of your example, and then someone else recalling the time they shot some bullets and they went back and checked for bodies and found 3

Oh for sure!

Well with all the money they pumped into ai they could have instead worked on making their search engine better at returning relevant and accurate results. Then when people clocked the fact that ai was giving them 50% bullshit, they would realise the juice is worth the squeeze with actually getting accurate info