Nah, these data centers are not even worth talking about being bad for the environment compared to almost everything else we do. Trying to use that as a primary focus here is just people looking for an excuse to hate the technology.
Here’s a beautiful article comparing the AI industry to Cattle farming. AI data center water use is measured in tens Billions of liters, while the beef industry is measured in Quadrillions.
You already shot down your own IP argument, I don’t need to help you there. AI companies don’t disproportionately steal from small creators, They may have done more of that in the first few iterations, but the datasets simply don’t do that anymore. There’s no need, they can train it on clean data, then just pull live from the web for specifics now.
I am dripping condescension because it’s fucking stupid. There are plenty of horrible things happening in the world today, AI datacenters are so far down the list that they do not deserve the amount of effort people are putting in to hate them while far more significant things go un-recognized. The reason for this? Because people are being misled, and instead of figuring out things themselves they take the shit they read at face value.
I’m going assume your link is coming to a good conclusion. I find the idea that cattle farming produces a lot of greenhouse gases to be very believable, and so I will take that as a given. But even with that in mind, the argument doesn’t hold.
First, people can be mad about two things at once. We don’t have to pick between being upset about one contributor of climate change versus another, we can just be upset at both. Besides, I think it’s safe to say that cattle farming is a better use of resources than AI is. Like yeah, sure, I think it has some serious excesses. There’s animal welfare issues, the aforementioned climate problems, and just the general problems of rampant and negligent industrialization writ large. But even after all that, it’s still feeding people. AI doesn’t have that silver lining,[1] so the comparison is unfair as well as unnecessary.
As for the IP argument, no, I didn’t shoot my own argument down. Please do not mistake my good faith self-examination for a failure. Like I said, it’s still perfectly viable to hate AI for that reason, and I explained why — just because there are better reasons doesn’t make that one invalid. I have no idea why you’d think AI companies aren’t still training on small creator’s works en masse though.[2] To me, that’s wrong at face value, but to explain:
Training is one of the biggest things that AI companies are constantly pushing for, because they believe that’s the primary vector by which the technology has (allegedly) improved. It’s one of the biggest sources of the environmental problem. And even if that wasn’t among their top priorities, why would they stop? Scraping is cheap. Several of them committed massive acts of literally-illegal piracy to do it. They’re clearly willing to jump hurdles for even a theoretical benefit, so why quit? Why ever quit?
With regards to your anger: Alright, yeah, I understand that. I disagree, for a variety of reasons that are probably obvious by now. To me, you’ve either been mislead, or – knowing how AI sometimes affects people – you may have used AI yourself and become somewhat dependent on it. I dunno. But I’ve been mad about stuff before and said rude shit because of it, so I can relate.
I think the helpful thing to be reminded of in this context, then, is that if you want to convince people, this can’t be how you try. People do not take well to “telling it how it is,” or any other form of tough-love style argumentation. They get defensive. It’s completely counter-productive and only helps to alienate people from you. Which is a pain in the ass, I know; slowing down to say something kinder has huge friction, while venting what you actually feel is satisfying. But unless venting is the goal, you want the former. Gentle words and impersonal, non-accusatory language can go a long way; even if people get mad it you for that, they’re still more likely to introspect after.
I’m sure you disagree about this, but debating the utility of AI would be a topic unto itself, so I’m leaving it out for now. ↩︎
Though I’m not sure you actually do believe that! I mean, you’re saying “just pull live from the web for specifics now,” and… what do you think I’m talking about, if not that? What’s “clean data” to you? Comments like these, where we never consented? That’s not clean to me at all. ↩︎
Using data about data centers from 4 years ago. Haha I guarantee you googles data center snare using more water now. Also one is food one is not, and the this is also bad argument is stupid.
Nah, these data centers are not even worth talking about being bad for the environment compared to almost everything else we do. Trying to use that as a primary focus here is just people looking for an excuse to hate the technology.
https://bryantresearch.co.uk/insight-items/comparing-water-footprint-ai/
Here’s a beautiful article comparing the AI industry to Cattle farming. AI data center water use is measured in tens Billions of liters, while the beef industry is measured in Quadrillions.
You already shot down your own IP argument, I don’t need to help you there. AI companies don’t disproportionately steal from small creators, They may have done more of that in the first few iterations, but the datasets simply don’t do that anymore. There’s no need, they can train it on clean data, then just pull live from the web for specifics now.
I am dripping condescension because it’s fucking stupid. There are plenty of horrible things happening in the world today, AI datacenters are so far down the list that they do not deserve the amount of effort people are putting in to hate them while far more significant things go un-recognized. The reason for this? Because people are being misled, and instead of figuring out things themselves they take the shit they read at face value.
I’m going assume your link is coming to a good conclusion. I find the idea that cattle farming produces a lot of greenhouse gases to be very believable, and so I will take that as a given. But even with that in mind, the argument doesn’t hold.
First, people can be mad about two things at once. We don’t have to pick between being upset about one contributor of climate change versus another, we can just be upset at both. Besides, I think it’s safe to say that cattle farming is a better use of resources than AI is. Like yeah, sure, I think it has some serious excesses. There’s animal welfare issues, the aforementioned climate problems, and just the general problems of rampant and negligent industrialization writ large. But even after all that, it’s still feeding people. AI doesn’t have that silver lining,[1] so the comparison is unfair as well as unnecessary.
As for the IP argument, no, I didn’t shoot my own argument down. Please do not mistake my good faith self-examination for a failure. Like I said, it’s still perfectly viable to hate AI for that reason, and I explained why — just because there are better reasons doesn’t make that one invalid. I have no idea why you’d think AI companies aren’t still training on small creator’s works en masse though.[2] To me, that’s wrong at face value, but to explain:
Training is one of the biggest things that AI companies are constantly pushing for, because they believe that’s the primary vector by which the technology has (allegedly) improved. It’s one of the biggest sources of the environmental problem. And even if that wasn’t among their top priorities, why would they stop? Scraping is cheap. Several of them committed massive acts of literally-illegal piracy to do it. They’re clearly willing to jump hurdles for even a theoretical benefit, so why quit? Why ever quit?
With regards to your anger: Alright, yeah, I understand that. I disagree, for a variety of reasons that are probably obvious by now. To me, you’ve either been mislead, or – knowing how AI sometimes affects people – you may have used AI yourself and become somewhat dependent on it. I dunno. But I’ve been mad about stuff before and said rude shit because of it, so I can relate.
I think the helpful thing to be reminded of in this context, then, is that if you want to convince people, this can’t be how you try. People do not take well to “telling it how it is,” or any other form of tough-love style argumentation. They get defensive. It’s completely counter-productive and only helps to alienate people from you. Which is a pain in the ass, I know; slowing down to say something kinder has huge friction, while venting what you actually feel is satisfying. But unless venting is the goal, you want the former. Gentle words and impersonal, non-accusatory language can go a long way; even if people get mad it you for that, they’re still more likely to introspect after.
I’m sure you disagree about this, but debating the utility of AI would be a topic unto itself, so I’m leaving it out for now. ↩︎
Though I’m not sure you actually do believe that! I mean, you’re saying “just pull live from the web for specifics now,” and… what do you think I’m talking about, if not that? What’s “clean data” to you? Comments like these, where we never consented? That’s not clean to me at all. ↩︎
Using data about data centers from 4 years ago. Haha I guarantee you googles data center snare using more water now. Also one is food one is not, and the this is also bad argument is stupid.