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.
IMHO -> you wouldn't need to write up such an article if people would think that AI adds an value to their life which is in replacable.
Example:
As of now AI is a big toy which you try to justify the use. A google search / fulltext search is much more efficient than using a AI Summary which you should by definition check after anyway.
You try to justify that we spending more electricity on a technology where we already have working solutions and will need those working solutions in the future too.
PS: I personally think the fundamental flaw in your article is that you define something can get replaced which is often not the case or you don't compare it to the current most used solution. Example -> Most books aren't printed anymore but only digitally published. The books which are printed needs to be printed as reference and to archive it long term or are printed for book lovers. So you can't say there will be 3000W less because it's not printed anymore.
TrippyHippyDan@lemmy.world 22 minutes ago
Netflix / Hulu never resorted to this fuckery arstechnica.com/…/elon-musks-xai-accused-of-lying…
Not saying they’re good either, but you cannot ignore the blatant environmental disregard of AI companies.
AnonomousWolf@lemmy.world 19 minutes ago
There are many reasons to be Anti-AI, the biggest one for me is Privacy & Manipulation.
But saying AI is brining the planet is BS (when you compared to other basics)