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?
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.
apotheotic@beehaw.org 14 hours ago
Goodness this is exhausting. I was not talking about literally being allowed to do something, that’s why it is in quotation marks. I was responding to you making assertions about my online “debate footprint” and how you attempted to use my relatively lower rate of discussing the impact of the meat industry online as a way to debunk my assertion. My (rhetorical) question was, how would my online behaviour have had to change for you to be satisfied upon trawling my posting history that I am not against AI for “trending” reasons?
Many claims may or may not have been debunked about AI water usage. The fact is that its value provided to society is absolutely dwarfed by its footprint. Same can be said of the meat industry, fast fashion, etc. I maintain that stance even at your proposed value of 1% of the total water usage of the US. 1% is a lot when you are talking about the entire country’s consumption vs a single industry.
Your edit is wild. I’m “following trends” because I am selective about where I spend my time and energy based on where I am making the most impact? Would my stance somehow be more valid if I were arguing with brick walls online about other matters and not contributing at all to the causes I care about with that time and energy expenditure? Even if that wasn’t a wild take, its just a genetic fallacy and doesn’t serve to actually move the discussion forward.
Anyway, speaking of spending my time and energy in places I feel I’m actually accomplishing something, we’ve been talking past one another for a while now, so I’m gonna stop replying now. Have a good life.
Mordikan@kbin.earth 1 hour ago
I'm just going to end this here with a final comment:
I know I'm not going to change your mind on this. It doesn't matter what evidence I provide, you just aren't ready to have that conversation. And that's ok.
This has never really been about you. It's been about all the others. It's about showing how while there is a lot of AI hype, there is an equal amount of anti-AI hype. Misinformation is misinformation. Doesn't matter your stance.
We have for 4 years now both simultaneously and perpetually been 3 months away from the AI bubble popping and 3 months away from AI stealing everyone's job.
So, for those that see this insane comment history, understand as well intentioned as some of these posters are, most everything they say is completely fabricated. They are just passing it along without knowing any better.