Comment on Why using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

• ctrl_alt_esc@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  What’s your point? “There are other things that pollute the environment even more, so this thing that pollutes the environment a bit less is totally fine”? I hope you understand why you’re getting downvoted.

  source

  • AnonomousWolf@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    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

    source

    • Caitlyynn@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      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

      source

      • hisao@ani.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • ctrl_alt_esc@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      people shouting that they care about the environment, while being silent on things like beef or flights etc. are being hypocrites

      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 purpose of powering magical text completion toys.

      I’ve seen many people say AI IS BURNING THE PLANNET, when that is simply not true

      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”.

      source
    • notnotmike@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      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

      source
    • General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      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.

      source