aibliss@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
My main concern downloading these decomps / mods / etc is malicious software.
AI local or paying for tokens isn’t free. It still takes time to even get AI to “do it for me”. These are just flooding my feeds. What’s the catch?
CosmoNova@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The catch it that a data center drained half a lake processing it, loses money in the process but the „vibe modder“ gets to make revenue on Youtube with ads for the clips I guess. I bet many of these creativity vultures have a patreon too. If you‘re anything like me you chuckle at a Mario 64 in Elden Ring clip and keep moving on, though. Why would I want to play that when both games separately are much more fun?
Mordikan@kbin.earth 1 day ago
The water usage thing was debunked and really needs to stop being used. It just invalidates the argument when used.
Fun fact: The California almond industry uses more water than AI datacenters.
CosmoNova@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
Using the worst widely known misuse of water as a straw man argument is just weak. The water usage from AI data centers is still pretty high, especially when you consider many are doing it without a permit, which is the actual issue and reason a lake could just vanish.
Mordikan@kbin.earth 22 hours ago
That would only be a straw man if that is an oversimplification of the issue (not sure how "drained half a lake" is not a distortion/oversimplification, but I'm guessing you read that with blinders on). My following comment in this thread clearly shows that is not the case, so I'll take what you say as ad hominem.
If you really want to get into fallacies though, sure he's the others you committed:
The phrase "the actual issue and reason a lake could just vanish" implies there is only one real issue and that I'm ignoring it. This frames the debate as a binary: either you care about vanishing lakes or you're making pathetic arguments. That's a false dilemma.
Phrases like "a lake could just vanish" and "global warming isn't getting easier" are designed to evoke alarm and urgency without connecting them logically to the original point. That's appeal to emotion.
Your comment pivots from the original topic (water usage comparisons) to a different issue: "permitting... which is the actual issue". That's a red herring.
Motte and Bailey also as the whole "Well, they still use a lot and many are unpermitted" (that's a motte: a hard-to-dispute claim). Those shifts are used be people without a point to appear victorious without defending the original position.
molehill_siesta@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
Not debunked, misreported
https://youtube.com/watch?v=c0PSKqqFbeg
Mordikan@kbin.earth 1 day ago
There's been lots of reports done on the subject. In the end, low estimates put it between 68-75 billion gallons annually, high estimates closer to 230 billion gallons. That seems like a lot, right? The USDA reports total agricultural usage at 26.4 trillion gallons. That means 0.88% of the water used for ag.
This is where the the argument usually breaks down because someone will argue that:
If it is a scarce resource, than why is only 0.88% of that resource important enough to save? That then transitions to providing something useful, but usefulness doesn't magically remove the scarcity that exists. Is destroying the resource for almonds really a valid reason?
AI datacenter water consumption does have a footprint (especially when factoring in hydropower used not just cooling), but to say it's "draining lakes" or destroying the environment while ignoring everything else is just bad faith.