curl-6 said:
haxxiy said:
I'm just pointing out that your assertion was meaningless as a criticism in the context that every human activity will, in fact, "damage the environment," and this one is rather low in the scale of environmental impact. Images and slop videos make up single digits of the compute inference demand, by the way, and if you were to argue these should be more regulated or not even acessible to the public at large, I'd tend to agree with you. But most usage comes from free users adopting it as a Google substitute (which comes as a wash in terms of power consumption since the cost per token has been dropping like a rock) and reasoning coding models that people are paying for to use in their jobs. |
The fact that other human activities also damage the environment doesn't mean that the cumulative cost of AI as a whole isn't harmful though; the risk is that if big tech is allowed to go ahead with the number of data centres they want to built, then the cost will skyrocket, and not just in terms of environmental damage, but also in terms of driving up the cost of electronics, water, electricity, etc for ordinary people. |
So when are we supposed to start caring? I mean you dont seem to be very upset about the Switch 2 using AI upscaling. When does it become harmful?
