8 ms·

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 recent

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 5d 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 5d 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 5d 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.
    - bayindirh 5d ago
      > there are many more things wrong than just AI. Systems don't break instantly, but after many blows. There's already many more things are wrong. AI is a very potent accelerant in this case, not the sole problem. > Why get mad at AI instead of at capitalism. This is nonsensical. I'm not mad at AI, but how it's built, operated and for what end (i.e. capitalism). I believe I'm pretty consistent about this for quite some time (i.e. my comment history). > whereas AI had like a 2 year run before all the datacenter madness came to light. Being known is not a guaranteed precursor to change. It's one step closer to change, yes, but nothing is guaranteed because the supporting forces are too strong. We'll see how the discourse and reality will evolve. We're just starting. > 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. My bad, misunderstood what you said. Maybe it didn't work in the distant past, but resisting cars in Paris worked, for example. Being adamant about Diesel cars' problems eradicated them from passenger sector and pushed them to the high-torque, special application, heavy haul niche. Unfortunately, humans don't get motivated to make changes until they experience the proverbial near-death experience, and there's always suspicion about early alarmists, but at least maybe we can sow the seeds of awareness earlier this time and reduce the time to change, IDK. But there's one thing I hate (and I don't use the word lightly): Being right early, being shot down by others with accusations of being stupid, and being right on the long run. This cycle is really wearing me down, and this is the third or fourth time I'm going through this about large world events.

vouwfietsman 5d 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 5d 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 5d 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.
  - bayindirh 5d ago
    > there are many more things wrong than just AI. Systems don't break instantly, but after many blows. There's already many more things are wrong. AI is a very potent accelerant in this case, not the sole problem. > Why get mad at AI instead of at capitalism. This is nonsensical. I'm not mad at AI, but how it's built, operated and for what end (i.e. capitalism). I believe I'm pretty consistent about this for quite some time (i.e. my comment history). > whereas AI had like a 2 year run before all the datacenter madness came to light. Being known is not a guaranteed precursor to change. It's one step closer to change, yes, but nothing is guaranteed because the supporting forces are too strong. We'll see how the discourse and reality will evolve. We're just starting. > 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. My bad, misunderstood what you said. Maybe it didn't work in the distant past, but resisting cars in Paris worked, for example. Being adamant about Diesel cars' problems eradicated them from passenger sector and pushed them to the high-torque, special application, heavy haul niche. Unfortunately, humans don't get motivated to make changes until they experience the proverbial near-death experience, and there's always suspicion about early alarmists, but at least maybe we can sow the seeds of awareness earlier this time and reduce the time to change, IDK. But there's one thing I hate (and I don't use the word lightly): Being right early, being shot down by others with accusations of being stupid, and being right on the long run. This cycle is really wearing me down, and this is the third or fourth time I'm going through this about large world events.