• leftthegroup@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    4 days ago

    Yes, but there’s zero fucking actual benefit.

    Seeing memes posted here that use AI while sitting on it is the most confusing thing to me.

    Just… don’t use it, people. The hole burning in AI bros’ pockets will close up if you just stop making it profitable. Even the free ones are making money with ads. Don’t use it, even for a joke.

    • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      Frankly focusing on the carbon output of AI models is a red herring. It’s not a significant part of the problem and just makes people complacent in the form of feeling like we’ve achieved something if it succeeds. It’s not worse than stuff like video games

      Focus on the actual negative effects of AI, but carbon intensity isn’t a major one

      • dditty@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        I’m much more concerned about AI datacenters’ use of evaporative cooling draining freshwater reserves than the carbon footprint atm

    • lime!@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      we do a lot of things for no benefit. video games, golf, horse racing, grilling… all those have far larger carbon footprints. as someone else said, focus on the actual negatives of generative ai, like the proven cognitive decline and loneliness.

    • MangoCats@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      “AI” and related tech does a lot of useful translation work. It translates speech to text, one language to another, maybe skilled people can do these jobs more elegantly and correctly, but certainly not more cheaply.