I already agreed some things deserve zero tolerance, so obviously there’s a line. If AI killed someone or gave the user shooting pains every ten times it was used then I would call it a failed attempt to make a tool. But the relevance of this escapes me.
You are conflating environmental costs of AI with willful destruction to make money.
AI data centers don’t need to use giant amounts of water. They do because assholes can get away with saying “fuck the people and environment” by paying off other assholes in governing positions to not regulate them.
AI data center’s electricity usage is not a problem either. We will see a massive increase in demand anyway as electrification is actually a big step in decarbonisation. What is a problem are again assholes in the fossil fuel industry that lobby the already mentioned corrupt assholes in government to fight renewable energy and its infrastructure that is clean and available in abundance.
If you believe that AI is a cause for the problem and not just a pretense and that they would not have found (actually manufacture, just like they manufactured this insane “Ai will solve everything”-bubble) another reason (or dozens) to burn the planet for their profit anyway, you really lost the plot.
So, bring the numbers. Where’s this environmental catastrophe resulting from the use of chatbots?
My $20 per month Claude Code subscription uses about $11 worth of electricity to generate my replies - our damn air conditioner is using near $11 per day to keep the house cool in the summer these days.
Evidence would make that an argument. Without it what you have is a hypothesis. I have a hypothesis that people die from the knock-on effects of social media, but here we are doing it without demonizing ourselves.
Fair enough. I’m not going to follow up with all that just for this comment thread. At least we can agree that some things are bad enough to justify not using.
People will throw the fascism label around for all kinds of things, sometimes justifiably, but more often to over-dramaticize and get attention.
Overly broad over used labels can’t deserve zero tolerance. You might say that murder deserves zero tolerance, but what about murder of a person who is in a position where they are about to murder a large number of other people? Do you enforce your “zero tolerance” by doing the thing you label as “zero tolerance”?
You might say that genocide should be zero tolerance, but again - we’re getting into over-broad over-used poorly defined words. When does killing of members of a certain culture or group become genocide? Clearly, it’s killing more than one - but if the group is a small society of maybe 100 members, is it genocide to kill 50 of them? When the 50 of them are about to murder 1000 others, even though the 1000 are members of a society of millions? What’s the threshold of “about to” when it’s acceptable to take away the “murder” label and kill them anyway?
I won’t, if you need an academical definitions of fascism or genocide to be able to spot and fight them, better go to Reddit or 4chan for this kind of troll-y shit. Fascism is not tolerable, period.
1990 Berlin, I spent the day with a “Kein Fußbreit den Faschisten” punk, he didn’t have his mohawk “up” but he was vehament: “When you see a fascist you must beat him up” - which, to me, is missing the point - bringing yourself down to their level. Of course this was on the actual streets with actual fists, knives, bats, and firebombs where people were actually dying, and worse: being maimed for life - not some idealistic internet ranting.
So, yeah, rant all you like, but even if they are calling themselves Neo-Nazi skinheads all over again, don’t be killing each other on my lawn - thanks.
Some things deserve zero tolerance IMO
Some things do, but work technique isn’t one of them.
What about a tool that killed someone every time you used it? Or every ten times you used it? There’s a line somewhere, right?
I already agreed some things deserve zero tolerance, so obviously there’s a line. If AI killed someone or gave the user shooting pains every ten times it was used then I would call it a failed attempt to make a tool. But the relevance of this escapes me.
My argument is that the environmental costs of AI, not to mention the knock-on effects of the societal change it incurs, lead to people dying.
You are conflating environmental costs of AI with willful destruction to make money.
AI data centers don’t need to use giant amounts of water. They do because assholes can get away with saying “fuck the people and environment” by paying off other assholes in governing positions to not regulate them.
AI data center’s electricity usage is not a problem either. We will see a massive increase in demand anyway as electrification is actually a big step in decarbonisation. What is a problem are again assholes in the fossil fuel industry that lobby the already mentioned corrupt assholes in government to fight renewable energy and its infrastructure that is clean and available in abundance.
If you believe that AI is a cause for the problem and not just a pretense and that they would not have found (actually manufacture, just like they manufactured this insane “Ai will solve everything”-bubble) another reason (or dozens) to burn the planet for their profit anyway, you really lost the plot.
So, bring the numbers. Where’s this environmental catastrophe resulting from the use of chatbots?
My $20 per month Claude Code subscription uses about $11 worth of electricity to generate my replies - our damn air conditioner is using near $11 per day to keep the house cool in the summer these days.
Evidence would make that an argument. Without it what you have is a hypothesis. I have a hypothesis that people die from the knock-on effects of social media, but here we are doing it without demonizing ourselves.
Fair enough. I’m not going to follow up with all that just for this comment thread. At least we can agree that some things are bad enough to justify not using.
As I have gone through life, I have decided that just about the only thing that deserves zero tolerance is zero tolerance itself.
No. For an easy example, does fascism deserve tolerance?
First, define fascism.
People will throw the fascism label around for all kinds of things, sometimes justifiably, but more often to over-dramaticize and get attention.
Overly broad over used labels can’t deserve zero tolerance. You might say that murder deserves zero tolerance, but what about murder of a person who is in a position where they are about to murder a large number of other people? Do you enforce your “zero tolerance” by doing the thing you label as “zero tolerance”?
You might say that genocide should be zero tolerance, but again - we’re getting into over-broad over-used poorly defined words. When does killing of members of a certain culture or group become genocide? Clearly, it’s killing more than one - but if the group is a small society of maybe 100 members, is it genocide to kill 50 of them? When the 50 of them are about to murder 1000 others, even though the 1000 are members of a society of millions? What’s the threshold of “about to” when it’s acceptable to take away the “murder” label and kill them anyway?
I won’t, if you need an academical definitions of fascism or genocide to be able to spot and fight them, better go to Reddit or 4chan for this kind of troll-y shit. Fascism is not tolerable, period.
1990 Berlin, I spent the day with a “Kein Fußbreit den Faschisten” punk, he didn’t have his mohawk “up” but he was vehament: “When you see a fascist you must beat him up” - which, to me, is missing the point - bringing yourself down to their level. Of course this was on the actual streets with actual fists, knives, bats, and firebombs where people were actually dying, and worse: being maimed for life - not some idealistic internet ranting.
So, yeah, rant all you like, but even if they are calling themselves Neo-Nazi skinheads all over again, don’t be killing each other on my lawn - thanks.