AI Defender Counters Zine Claims On Emissions Water Use And Copyright

idk just going down the list:

1) Yes xAI's Colossus in Memphis and Mississippi are bad. They are extreme outliers in the AI industry for how close they emit to people's homes.

2) AI accelerates climate change in the sense that it uses energy. I think the only way to fairly judge how much something accelerates climate change is to think about it in a per capita way, because otherwise its only sin is that it's popular. Like chocolate bars have more emissions in total than a single yacht, but I think the yacht is more wasteful for climate. Per user, AI adds extremely small levels of CO2. The reason it's having such an effect is that it's being used so much, not that each use is especially bad.

3) Since when do we think of individual bottled water companies as being a unique threat to water?

4) Yes all global AI use emitted more than New York State. Most global industries do.

5) So has the internet. It's bad, but is the answer just not using the technology at all?

6) I've known a lot of people who were basically driven insane by using the internet. It's a real problem. Do we stop using the internet? How often does this actually happen out of the hundreds of millions of people using it every day.

7) Information from this twitter poster is also tremendously unreliable.

8) Only if you use it badly. This is otherwise an argument against books.

9) If I go to a museum and see art I like, and draw something inspired by it that doesn't come close enough to it to actually breach copyright, is that evil? Do I need the artists' permission before doing that? That's what's happening here. Weird for an anarchist to defend IP.

10) It's not using that much water.

11) The government also does this with the internet. Should we stop using the internet?

12) If AI is so useless, wouldn't you prefer it if people doing bad things used it? Wouldn't that incapacitate them?

13) The tackiness of art has zero relationship to its politics. Leftists make lots of tacky art too. Fascists can also use photoshop, is this an argument against photoshop?

I think these are mostly wrong, but the real threats of AI, like power concentration or surveillance or even extinction are very real. But to fully understand either I think it helps a lot to actually try out the models to see what's up. As it stands, most arguments I see against using AI apply to literally any industry at all.

idk just going down the list:

1) Yes xAI's Colossus in Memphis and Mississippi are bad. They are extreme outliers in the AI industry for how close they emit to people's homes.

2) AI accelerates climate change in the sense that it uses energy. I think the only way to fairly judge how much something accelerates climate change is to think about it in a per capita way, because otherwise its only sin is that it's popular. Like chocolate bars have more emissions in total than a single yacht, but I think the yacht is more wasteful for climate. Per user, AI adds extremely small levels of CO2. The reason it's having such an effect is that it's being used so much, not that each use is especially bad.

3) Since when do we think of individual bottled water companies as being a unique threat to water?

4) Yes all global AI use emitted more than New York State. Most global industries do.

5) So has the internet. It's bad, but is the answer just not using the technology at all?

6) I've known a lot of people who were basically driven insane by using the internet. It's a real problem. Do we stop using the internet? How often does this actually happen out of the hundreds of millions of people using it every day.

7) Information from this twitter poster is also tremendously unreliable.

8) Only if you use it badly. This is otherwise an argument against books.

9) If I go to a museum and see art I like, and draw something inspired by it that doesn't come close enough to it to actually breach copyright, is that evil? Do I need the artists' permission before doing that? That's what's happening here. Weird for an anarchist to defend IP.

10) It's not using that much water. By 2030, all American data centers may use 1% as much water as irrigated corn.

11) The government also does this with the internet. Should we stop using the internet?

12) If AI is so useless, wouldn't you prefer it if people doing bad things used it? Wouldn't that incapacitate them?

13) The tackiness of art has zero relationship to its politics. Leftists make lots of tacky art too. Fascists can also use photoshop, is this an argument against photoshop?

I think these are mostly wrong, but the real threats of AI, like power concentration or surveillance or even extinction are very real. But to fully understand either I think it helps a lot to actually try out the models to see what's up. As it stands, most arguments I see against using AI apply to literally any industry at all.