Comment on Why using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment
AnonomousWolf@lemmy.world 3 days agoBeef is useful? You could just eat chicken and other meats instead. And you be saving the environment 100x more than not using AI
Comment on Why using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment
AnonomousWolf@lemmy.world 3 days agoBeef is useful? You could just eat chicken and other meats instead. And you be saving the environment 100x more than not using AI
orclev@lemmy.world 3 days ago
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.
AnonomousWolf@lemmy.world 3 days 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.