6 ms·

Bad blog. > I do not come to you with clean hands. > I am not here to dictate morality These two things contradict eachother. > My primary focus here will be

Bad blog. > I do not come to you with clean hands. > I am not here to dictate morality These two things contradict eachother. > My primary focus here will be software development > Environmental Harm > Stanley Tucci These three things also contradict eachother. > If we lived in a post-scarcity Maybe this is your real problem, and you're just confusing cause and effect. > We need to resist “AI” so that thousands, perhaps millions of people do not die Hyperbole. > Look up the “Eliza effect”. Even the weakest conceivable program like this was seductive. These new ones are masters of seduction. Sounds like software development alright. This person has a familiar name, I'm sure he is amazing at something. This blog is not the peak of his work. EDIT: > I quote “AI” to emphasize that these things are not intelligent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect

bayindirh 6d ago
I don't think the take is bad, and what he says is right. Maybe we shall look at the substance rather than the artistic properties of their words? I was recently discussing with someone who wanted to put all datacenters into AI datacenter basket, and inadvertently labeled all consolidated computing bad. That person, claiming otherwise was not knowing what they were talking about, But while having nuances, AI datacenters and heavy AI usage is harmful to the world we live in, as a whole. We should come into terms with this and go from there.
- vouwfietsman 6d ago
  No, what he says is not right. Parts of it are, but broadly (as I pointed out) he conflates a lot of things together that have no business being in the same sentence. 1. Reducing/replacing/automating highly complex work is fundamentally a good thing, it might be the case that society is not ready for the consequences of it, those are two separate things. Concluding that millions of people will die, is simply hyperbole. 2. Saying that AI is not intelligent is at best a non-sequitur but more likely intended misrepresentation and goalpost moving 3. The environmental harm of AI, however significant, is ultimately public knowledge and 100% clear in the public discourse around the current implementation of AI. This says nothing about AI in the general sense, only how we produce it today. This is like preventing cars from becoming a thing because they produce CO2. Do you think the world would be better off if cars were never invented? None of this is about the 'artistic properties of their words', it is precisely about the core content being objectionable.
  - bayindirh 6d ago
    > Reducing/replacing/automating highly complex work is fundamentally a good thing, it might be the case that society is not ready for the consequences of it, those are two separate things. Concluding that millions of people will die, is simply hyperbole. I don't think saying that millions will die is a hyperbole. It might be communicated poorly, but having no ability to work in a world with worsening quality of life (via climate crisis and economic changes) is being pinched between a rock and a hard place. What these people gonna do? Photosynthesis? One of countries which is among the leaders of this technology believes that social governmental systems is communism. So, yeah, perfect. > The environmental harm of AI, however significant, is ultimately public knowledge and 100% clear in the public discourse around the current implementation of AI. Yet the people who own and hype this technology is applying the Tobacco/Soda Industry Playbook: Deny and publish studies saying otherwise. This is not fair, because who has the gold, makes the rules to increase their profit even more. > This is like preventing cars from becoming a thing because they produce CO2. Do you think the world would be better off without combustion engines? My current stance is not undoing things to zero, however forcing AI development to be more environmentally conscious and start regulating its power and water use. This is possible by prescribing energy source mix ratios, closed loop water cooling, etc. etc. Of course this will slow some progress and make it a bit more expensive for a while, but in the end it'll be way more environmentally friendly. All discourse doesn't have to be on a duotone plane. We can discuss in a 3D space with infinitely more shades.
    - vouwfietsman 6d ago
      > but having no ability to work in a world with worsening quality of life If unemployment leads to death, there are many more things wrong than just AI. Why get mad at AI instead of at capitalism. This is nonsensical. > Tobacco/Soda Industry Playbook Except both of those succeeded in destroying health for decades, whereas AI had like a 2 year run before all the datacenter madness came to light. > My current stance is not undoing things to zero, This does not at all answer my question, my question is about the past not the present. The author is arguing to resist AI, what if resisting cars had worked? This is my question.
ChickeNES 6d ago
> Bad blog. The Anti's have been cranking up their submissions of this junk lately.

bayindirh 6d ago

I don't think the take is bad, and what he says is right. Maybe we shall look at the substance rather than the artistic properties of their words? I was recently discussing with someone who wanted to put all datacenters into AI datacenter basket, and inadvertently labeled all consolidated computing bad. That person, claiming otherwise was not knowing what they were talking about, But while having nuances, AI datacenters and heavy AI usage is harmful to the world we live in, as a whole. We should come into terms with this and go from there.

vouwfietsman 6d ago
No, what he says is not right. Parts of it are, but broadly (as I pointed out) he conflates a lot of things together that have no business being in the same sentence. 1. Reducing/replacing/automating highly complex work is fundamentally a good thing, it might be the case that society is not ready for the consequences of it, those are two separate things. Concluding that millions of people will die, is simply hyperbole. 2. Saying that AI is not intelligent is at best a non-sequitur but more likely intended misrepresentation and goalpost moving 3. The environmental harm of AI, however significant, is ultimately public knowledge and 100% clear in the public discourse around the current implementation of AI. This says nothing about AI in the general sense, only how we produce it today. This is like preventing cars from becoming a thing because they produce CO2. Do you think the world would be better off if cars were never invented? None of this is about the 'artistic properties of their words', it is precisely about the core content being objectionable.
- bayindirh 6d ago
  > Reducing/replacing/automating highly complex work is fundamentally a good thing, it might be the case that society is not ready for the consequences of it, those are two separate things. Concluding that millions of people will die, is simply hyperbole. I don't think saying that millions will die is a hyperbole. It might be communicated poorly, but having no ability to work in a world with worsening quality of life (via climate crisis and economic changes) is being pinched between a rock and a hard place. What these people gonna do? Photosynthesis? One of countries which is among the leaders of this technology believes that social governmental systems is communism. So, yeah, perfect. > The environmental harm of AI, however significant, is ultimately public knowledge and 100% clear in the public discourse around the current implementation of AI. Yet the people who own and hype this technology is applying the Tobacco/Soda Industry Playbook: Deny and publish studies saying otherwise. This is not fair, because who has the gold, makes the rules to increase their profit even more. > This is like preventing cars from becoming a thing because they produce CO2. Do you think the world would be better off without combustion engines? My current stance is not undoing things to zero, however forcing AI development to be more environmentally conscious and start regulating its power and water use. This is possible by prescribing energy source mix ratios, closed loop water cooling, etc. etc. Of course this will slow some progress and make it a bit more expensive for a while, but in the end it'll be way more environmentally friendly. All discourse doesn't have to be on a duotone plane. We can discuss in a 3D space with infinitely more shades.
  - vouwfietsman 6d ago
    > but having no ability to work in a world with worsening quality of life If unemployment leads to death, there are many more things wrong than just AI. Why get mad at AI instead of at capitalism. This is nonsensical. > Tobacco/Soda Industry Playbook Except both of those succeeded in destroying health for decades, whereas AI had like a 2 year run before all the datacenter madness came to light. > My current stance is not undoing things to zero, This does not at all answer my question, my question is about the past not the present. The author is arguing to resist AI, what if resisting cars had worked? This is my question.

ChickeNES 6d ago

> Bad blog. The Anti's have been cranking up their submissions of this junk lately.