Controversial - the place to discuss controversial topics

475 readers

1 users here now

Controversial - the community to discuss controversial topics.

Challenge others opinions and be challenged on your own.

This is not a safe space nor an echo-chamber, you come here to discuss in a civilized way, no flaming, no insults!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, "trust me bro" is not a valid argument.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Hastur@sh.itjust.works

-9

AI is not bad for the environment in comparison with many other regular activities. (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by AnonomousWolf@lemmy.world to c/controversial@sh.itjust.works

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

People on Lemmy love to cry AI IS BURNING THE PLANNET but have they ever really looked at the numbers?

1 kg Beef = 60kg CO2 - source
1000km Return flight = 314kg CO2 - source
1 Bitcoin transaction = 645kg of CO2 - source
1000 AI prompts = 3kg of CO2 - source including training

I'm a strong advocate for privacy, and I myself am Anti generative AI in many ways, but can we please stop shouting that AI IS BRUNING THE PLANNET, it weakens our position to push back at actual issues with AI like privacy.

Here is a detailed breakdown debunking that AI is destroying the planet: https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-cheat-sheet-for-conversations-about

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AnonomousWolf@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Still a drop in the bucket compared to people taking flights to go on vacation.

If you're not angry at people taking flights, you shouldn't be angry at AI for environmental reasons.

There are plenty of other reasons to hate AI.

[–] fakeplastic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 days ago

I agree that crypto and casual air travel are also wasteful and that there are plenty of other reasons to hate AI.

But it's reasonable for someone to believe that recreational travel is beneficial in a way that AI isn't. I could do without either, but there's nothing hypocritical about thinking that two very different things have different cost/benefit calculus.