AI datacenters do not cause drought. There is no evidence to support that claim. And if you think you do have evidence, I would love to see the source.
And you totally can contain multitudes. People should be like that. But they in practice aren't. They follow what is trending. For example, if you look through your comment history how many comments will be pertaining to the US meat industry? How many to datacenters?
I would argue that you care a great deal more about one than the other. Which, going back to my original point, why is that 1% more important than the remaining 99% (or specifically the 50% that you care so much about)?
apotheotic@beehaw.org 6 hours ago
I don’t have evidence on hand, but I have read compelling scholarly articles previously on the matter. Feel free to disregard this discussion point if that’s a dealbreaker.
Your argument would be incorrect, as I have been vegetarian for over 2 decades and vegan for the last 5 years. I’ve just found that trying to sway people online about the meat industry is a fool’s errand, whereas I have had decent success in having constructive conversations about the harms of AI. My meat industry related efforts are focused primarily on face to face interactions.
My stance on AI isn’t based on what’s “trending”, except for the fact that it, as a pretty existential threat in its current trajectory of resource usage, job displacement, and market “growth”, is rapidly starting to infest every aspect of my life. So yes, the trend that AI is following is causing my stance on it to be pertinent to a growing number of conversations.
I’m curious though, what would I have to be doing for you to believe that I’m… I dont know, “allowed”? to talk about AI’s water usage impact?
Mordikan@kbin.earth 4 hours ago
I would say you are starting to approach an opposing view as treating yours as "wrong thought" when confronted. That is an absolutest method that is only ever used to justify what you think is right and vilify all else. It isn't a matter of what is "allowed". There is no restriction to that. But if you put out an idea or belief that can be deconstructed and proven incorrect/incomplete, then people have the right to speak against it.
There are lots of points you can make that are completely valid and evidentiary by nature, but AI water usage isn't one of them. It has been debunked to point that I would bucket it into the same group that "vaccines cause autism" fit into.