Don't applaud fake "creativity" in AI-generated garbage. You're applauding a parody of creativity, and

[AZJonnie]

51. Yes, that is what I'm saying

I don't disagree with the general premise that, yes, in totality, AI is using massive amounts of electricity, and that in many cases, whatever it is doing, its possible it's replacing less carbon-intensive means that previously existed to do the same task. Nor that the poor will end up suffering disproportionately for it's deployment. But that is unfortunately rather "the usual".

It is for a similar reason I'm even MORE against the climate-wrecking ridiculousness that is 'crypto', which is literally wasted electricity that friggin idiots have decided should represent 'wealth', when in reality, it 100% represents IMPOVERISHMENT for humanity. STUPIDEST, most backwards idea EVER, that crypto bullshit!

However I also think it's important to think of the total picture re: AI. In the theoretical conversation I have with another fan, it takes 'fuel' for their brain as well. So, food. That had to be grown, picked, harvested, brought to market, then to their home (or restaurant). They probably have climate controls in their dwellings, using fuel. They probably have to drive to work to make the money they need to buy that food, etc, etc. Then, we're either using power on the internet to have the conversation, or we probably burned fossil fuels to put ourselves in the same location to have the conversation in person.

So, the pertinent math for determining whether I increased or decreased 'my carbon footprint' is probably hopelessly complex, rather than blatantly and obviously 'massively increased'. Could I have biked to the library for maybe a book on the Beach Boys? Yes, and that clearly would've been the most efficient solution, totally stipulate to that

Anyways my objections are more on the basis of the fact that AI could gain a lot more control of our lives than what the public realizes, that it is stealing copyrighted materials, and that it will result in massive job losses. But from a purely 'climate-based' perspective, I think that the totality of the math *could* show that AI doing 'people' jobs, especially if it's being powered by renewables to do so and/or it decreases the amount of driving that the population must do could actually turn out to be a net positive in terms greenhouse gases.

But then again, a few billion people starving to death over then next 6 months would also be a massive net improvement in that regard, so I don't consider this to be the end-all, be-all of metrics on a subject like this.