That is training, not use. You are being dishonest.

Ok, let’s look at your own words then:

I heard a large AI model is equivalent to the emissions from five cars over its lifetime.

Cool, I hear lots of things. Where’s the evidence?

So, absent of AI, it’s not like we’re up in arms about the waste and usage from other technologies. AI is being singled out—it’s the star of the show right now.

Who is we? I am not happy about any of it, but especially when it is something not especially useful (you could have used spelling and grammar checkers that have predated AI by many years but you decided to waste water).

And I don’t really care about the potential of an orphan-crushing machine as long as we let it keep crushing orphans.

I love this last part the best though:

Sure, it consumes energy and has costs

We can just forget about these because you didn’t want to use standard grammar and spellcheckers and they have the potential to do a bunch of things they can’t do. Awesome. Totally worth the end of civilization.

Not being able to use your own words to explain something to me and having the thing that is an ecological disaster that also lies all the time explain it to me instead really only reinforces my point that there’s no reason to like this technology.

I don’t know, but be sure and let us all know when you call Russia and make this deal so we can definitely congratulate you and not in any way contact the authorities for you violating sanctions.

“Mysterious pile of bones” is just not a group of words you want to hear unless you’re an archaeologist.

No, I did not literally do that at all. In any way. That’s just a lie. I have never tried to get you or anyone else to shut up about condemning genocide.

Why are you lying?

Don’t fuck with Finland, Russia. It historically doesn’t end well for you.

I used to do that when I was younger, but these days it’s usually for something like the Olympics where I want to understand what’s going on.

I do get a huge dose of Canadian pride though, so that’s fun.

Thanks! For my case, I’m assuming none of them are in English and I’m a dumb 'murcan who barely made it through French in high school, so I’m going to have to stick with Canada. But hopefully that will help others.

I do not mean to suggest a blanket free-for-all of atrocities, but rather the crossing of some useful lines that we wouldn’t normally cross.

And I’m telling you, that leads to escalation. Russia will then do something worse. Should Ukraine do something worse to then in return? At what point does it stop?

Okay, but that’s a different subject. This started with the suggestion that if Russia is committing war crimes, Ukraine should as well.

I see, so if we ignore the rest of the article entirely, your point is supported. What an odd way of trying to prove a point.

Also, I guess this was a lie:

Ok, you just want to shout not discuss so I wont engage any further.

Although since it was a lie, I’d love you to tell me what you think I was shouting about.

There is a massive gulf between not bending or negotiating and committing war crimes.

The allies were able to fight the Nazis without becoming the Nazis.

That’s a nice cop-out there since nothing I said could remotely be considered shouting and your New Yorker article in no way supported your point.

Your link is just about Google’s energy use, still says it uses a vast amount of energy, and says that A.I. is partially responsible for climate change.

It even quotes that moron Altman saying that there’s not enough energy to meet their needs and something new needs to be developed.

I have no idea why you think this supports your point at all.

Apologies, I didn’t post the link, it’s edited now.

Yes, and it’s paywalled, so I can’t read it. I think you knew that. It could say anything.

I’m 100% behind forcing data centre’s to use sustainable water sources or other methods of cooling.

Cool, good luck with that happening.

But that is a far cry from AI energy consumption being a major threat,

A different subject from water. You keep trying to get away from the water issue. I also think you know why you’re doing that.

Also, define threat. It contributes to climate change. It gets rid of potable water. I’d call that a threat.

By the way, there is nowhere in the U.S. where water is not going to be a problem soon.

https://geographical.co.uk/science-environment/us-groundwater-reserves-being-depleted-at-alarming-rate

But hey, we can just move the servers to the ocean, right? Or maybe outer space! It’s cold!

They still need a fair amount of work to take them to the finish line, though who knows how long that’ll remain true.

And I’m telling you that’s not what is happening anymore. They are just having middle managers do rough cuts and saying “good enough.” Have you seen the quality of advertising video these days?

What New Yorker article? You didn’t link to one. I, however, linked to Yale University which has a slightly better track record on science than The New Yorker.

And, again, you are arguing that emitting less CO2 is a good thing. It is not.

And if water can be a big issue, why is AI a good thing when it uses it up? You can say “people shouldn’t build data centers in those locations,” but they are. And the world doesn’t run on “shouldn’t.”

Edit: Now you linked to it. It’s paywalled, which means I can’t read it and I doubt you did either.

Video editing is not busy work. You’re excusing executives telling middle managers to put out inferior videos to save money.

You seem to think what I used to do was just cutting and pasting and had nothing to do with things like understanding film making techniques, the psychology of choosing and arranging certain shots, along with making do what you have when you don’t have enough to work with.

But they don’t care about that anymore because it costs money. Good luck getting an AI to do that as well as a human any time soon. They don’t care because they save money this way.

So you can continue to be employed? What an odd question.