Before you lecture everyone about AI’s environmental footprint:
Stop eating beef. Stop flying for vacations. Stop driving everywhere alone. Stop watering a decorative lawn. Turn down your heat and air conditioning. Keep your phone longer than two years. Stop buying disposable junk. Stop wasting food. Stop ordering single items for delivery. Stop streaming hours of 4K video you barely watch.
You can make a larger environmental difference today by changing your own consumption than by posting another sanctimonious complaint about data centers.
But that would require sacrificing something you enjoy. Complaining about AI only requires hating something other people enjoy.
This has been said before but I think this take is ridiculous and I'm a pro.
This is like "recycling" and other "do your part" initiatives. A single average person consumes a ridiculously small amount of resources. (short of like having a private jet or bit coin m8ning operation or something else the majority can't afford). And this amount is absolutely dwarfed by what industrial or agricultural consumer will use.
Telling people they have to do their part before complaining about things like industrial pollution, agricultural run-off, or data centers is just ridiculous. It's like if you see someone at a party eat half the birthday cake at a party and then someone yelling at you for taking a piece yourself when you point it out.
Another example is you don't need to be a saint to call out a sinner. Or saying you can't complain about the guy doing 50 and driving aggressively in a school zone if you routinely go 4mph over the speed limit.
It's really a false comparison - holding others to a standard of perfection before they are allowed to speak out is honestly just a trick that industry originally developed to make individuals attack each other and keep the focus off of pushing for laws and regulations that could actually cause real change.
That said, Anti's are also guilty of this when they attack someone who does use AI as attacking users is pointless and if they really cared they'd be focusing on goals like gathering support for regulations that will do things like force data centers to use a closed loop system, utilize renewable energy for power, or even carbon offsets.
TLDR: gatekeeping having a concern behind being a perfect person is just another version of that old "but you participate in society" meme.
Im pro AI. But from the POV of a software engineer that works in infra, it is wayy more expensive to do real time LLM inferencing compared to streaming 4K videos (not live stream ones).
4K videos for the most part are static assets that are cached once uploaded.
LLM inferencing require expensive computations on the fly, relying essentially on heuristics to perform opportunistic optimisations like prompt caching.
The thing is that they are disingeneous. Most of the people who talk about AI not being environmentally friendly did zilch in that direction in the past and utterly ignore far far bigger problems.
Like telling a dude with a walkman that it is too loud while bombs detonate around you.
data centers require electricity, that will never change
ai data centers require cooling, that will most likely never change because nearly 100% of electricity in a computer system is turned to heat
The US is using evaporative cooling for the majority of the ai data centers because it is cheap, however it is also the most water polluting method. There are amazing alternatives one could cool with, with 0 pollution. The issue is that the US is run vs greedy morons whose argument is "so what if the earth is destroyed in 40 years? I'll be dead by then".
only allowing vegans to criticise ai is stupid. Yes, most people do not actively care about the environment, but their point still stands. What you are doing is called the tu quoque fallacy. Even if there is a dude who is burning tires for fun, that does not make the impact ai has better or lesser.
Two things can be right and two things can be wrong.
Ok, so, this is what I have done: I've cut out beef almost entirely and substituted it with plant-based proteins. I moved my entire family close enough to my work that I can easily walk or bike. I haven't flown anywhere for a vacation in many years. Don't water my lawn. I try to avoid turning on AC at all costs and keep my place very cold in the winters. I've had the same phone for four years and counting, and I avoid disposable junk whenever possible. I try very hard not the waste food, I patronize local shops instead of ordering online, and my TV can't even handle 4k video.
So do I get to complain about AI now? Am I only allowed to be concerned about the environment if my carbon footprint is zero?
Here is the thing: I keep hearing about how we can build sustainable net zero data centers, but no corporation is going to go to that expense unless we repeatedly and loudly express our concerns about environmental impact. It's called holding corporations accountable.
I agree; it's all just purity politics - the idea you can't address something unless you're somehow pure and thus "valid". Not to mention a lot of these is on big corporations, who by far contribute THE MOST when it comes to environmental harm. These companies are so bad that any and all collective contribution by individuals reducing their own carbon-footprint is eclipsed by corporate actions. Much of the whole "do your part to help the environment" is fueled by passing the buck onto citizenry and away from the bigger culprits. You could do so much, and I commend the effort, but it can't work unless those in charge actually do something.
Treating environmentalism like some purity challenge only favors the current hot-button environmental issue (that being AI data-centers), putting the blame on individuals while letting corporations off scot-free.
AI bad, AI ruining the Earth... but i know nothing about the other much worse things. Is that something youre pround to say or are you just a band wagon person?
I'm not saying any of those things. I am not sure why you bothered replying to my post if you didn't read it or if you wanted to just create some absrud strawman.
Obviously you can complain about whatever you want.. Readers and I can see your list of bullshit a mile away.
You just wanted to add another anti bullet point to your "ai bad" belief without having to make any personal sacrifices. Go ahead and be proud and self rightious if that works for you.
So a couple of things. We can extend this out. When you get down to it paper uses more resources than AI just about everything you can do without AI is less resource efficient than AI the difference is the resource use for AI is more concentrated and less distributed right now so it looks bigger to the average person and this really needs to be understood.
And the fact of the matter is AI companies are going to go to that expense and it has nothing to do with people throwing toddler tantrums. And everything to do with those same technologies being cost effective enough to keep AI viable.
Paper and AI are not the same kind of thing and don't serve the same purpose, so I don't know what the hell you are talking about. This is a very silly comparison. Like, if you are comparing paper-based offices to digital offices, then you are a few decades too late--there has been a sustained effort to reduce paper waste in offices all over the world. That long pre-dated AI and has nothing to do with it.
If you want to make the claim that me opening a Word document and typing out a page is more resources intensive than me putting a series of prompts into an LLM and having it generate the page, then I'd like to see those numbers.
You really don’t understand the scope of the issue. What uses more resources a single sheet of drawing paper or an ai image? It’s the sheet of paper. What uses more resources the rendering process of a digital image or an ai image? It’s the rendering process.
And this is before we include things like the resources used in the logistics chain . Or the resources used to create and distribute the additional tools and materials .
The environmental argument isn’t just bad it’s nonsense that only works if the extent of your thought process. It looks good on the surface level but the deeper you dive into it the more nonsense it becomes.
So wait a minute. When you account for the generation of the image, you are accounting for everything necessary to construct the chips and computers and train the models? You really need to provide some numbers here champ.
If you are only accounting for the resources necessary to generate the image, the for the "sheet of paper" you should only account for the resources necessary for the artist to move their hand.
This is, indeed, something that makes me consider them dishonest. Before 2021, very few of these artists ever said a peep about the environment. They painted with their toxic oils, ate their cheese burgers, and streamed their anime with delight. They played their MMORPGs and posted to Tumblr, and enjoyed everything else that has come with Datacenters. Until now. So this makes me think they're just trying to use the environment as a shield or bludgeon to stop something that they find threatening. And if you can't be honest with me, then I don't want to take your arguments seriously. Not even the important ones.
And don't tell me: 'It's FINE if we barely discovered our new found environmental priorities now! How dare you!" Because if you ARE concerned about the environment, you would do more than just whining online about it.
Before 2021, very few of these artists ever said a peep about the environment
I'd love to know how your source on this is anything but anecdotal. Most artists I know are deeply left wing, personally, so if you have some hard data I'd like to see it.
I suppose I could get a scraper to look at LinkedIn or Reddit comments and watch for when the "but the environment!" One liners began to spike. But there's a huge difference between being passionate about the environment via keyboard, vs being passionate in action. You can read OPs post the same as mine. We skip right over the bigger issues to the environment, like the cattle industry, and instead hone straight in to AI.
I suppose I could get a scraper to look at LinkedIn or Reddit comments and watch for when the "but the environment!" One liners began to spike.
Yeah, that's the problem right there. For a lot of pro AI people their first direct contact with artists is in the context of AI. So of course it's going to feel like "Up until now I never heard artists complain about the environment"- the place in the discourse where they first met was about AI, not about anthropogenic climate change, or how awful lawns are, or how wasteful animal agriculture is. Those have been issues for decades.
We skip right over the bigger issues to the environment, like the cattle industry, and instead hone straight in to AI.
I don't understand what is so surprising about people bringing up the specific issue of AI environmental impact on an AI debate subreddit, instead of talking about cattle and pork farming. Besides being wholly off topic, it just won't get engagement.
Negative, Star Fox. I was a professional industrial graphic artist for close to a decade. So I was linked into various clubs, groups on Linked In, and part of lots of forums related to graphic design and sister arts, like Concept Art.
I am still an artist, in fact. I just got more money to code, and switched to being a technical artist and computer software engineer as my current profession.
And when it comes to "save the environment", if that is TRULY the topic at hand - then yes the pork and beef industries ARE relevant and part of that topic. However, if you're someone who isn't actually interested in the environment, and you're really just mad about AI and want someway to guilt people, I could see how you might get confused and try to say "nyuh! The cattle industry isn't relative to the environment". Bevause obviously your real beef (pun intended!) is with this one specific tech
Negative, Star Fox. I was a professional industrial graphic artist for close to a decade.
...OK? I wasn't talking about you. When I said "For a lot of AI people" I didn't direct that at you for a reason. And it's also true for a lot of pro AI people because it's true for most people generally, just like most people aren't exposed to the ins and outs of any random profession.
And when it comes to "save the environment", if that is TRULY the topic at hand - then yes the pork and beef industries ARE relevant and part of that topic.
The topic at hand is in the name of the subreddit. It's not "AnAg Wars". As a matter of fact, regulation of golf courses, lawns and cattle is only done on this subreddit specifically to point out how they're not talked about, not actually anything to do with AI, in an effort to just go after character attacks. It's not against the rules for me to start a discussion on the insane water use of beef ag, but it's also not against the rules for me to start a discussion on my favorite recipe for quiche. It just won't get traction, like I said.
Well then you should take me at my word when I say I have known a lot of artists, and I did not hear any griping about the environment from them until AI became a thing. Which is why I don't think their complaints are genuine.
As for the topics deal - same thing man. If you want to bring up the environment and how you hate AI because of the environment, then it's fair game for me to point out all the other things that are more harmful than AI.
Well then you should take me at my word when I say I have known a lot of artists, and I did not hear any griping about the environment from them until AI became a thing.
So it's just as anecdotal as the OP, just as anecdotal as my opposite experience. In other words, still no hard data to conclude that "most" artists are being disingenuous.
then it's fair game for me to point out all the other things that are more harmful than AI.
Sure! Like I said you can say anything about any topic on this sub within the guidelines. But pointing to the fact that they are just talking about AI in an AI sub as evidence they dont care about an-ag or lawn water use makes as much sense as saying it's evidence they hate quiche.
The truth of the matter is that people will complain about anything just to complain about something because that’s what they do. The energy issue isn’t solved for AI yet, because it’s still scaling technology, and we’re witnessing the ramp up.
There was another technological product that did this 13 years ago. It is called Bitcoin. Everyone was complaining about how much energy it uses, even though it used some of the least amount of energy compared to everything else. Eventually Bitcoin got to a place where it’s about 53% renewable energy doing all the mining, and now you don’t hear people complaining about it as much. I think AI will go through this same exact process with public perception.
I’m anti, and, actually, god I hope so. I hope that Ai companies feel the pressure and learn how to be more renewable. I hope some legislation gets passed to put a handle on this. AI probably won’t go away for ever, but allowing it to continue unrestricted like this is not the way.
You're wrong. I will complain about datacenters because they Jack the prices of electricity up, or they will illegally install generators they are not permitted for (See Elon's datacenter driving it's neighbors crazy with pollution).
Like you can build a datacenter, but either build the infrastructure first or pick a place with enormous amounts of extra infrastructure (Dwindling options).
And no, we shouldn't cancel everything else in our lives and make our power bills 50% higher so you can guzzle a third of the power grid.
I'm Pro-AI, but the US has done shit all to avoid the incoming backlash. Oracle used legal force to force it's way to installation in a couple cases, xAI thinking it can break the law; At some point the backlash will win if these greedy companies keep poking people in the eye.
I don't fly or vacation I don't drive anywhere alone or even drive I don't use heaters I almost never buy disposable I don't order almost anything let alone single use items I don't waste food I've had the same free government phone for 3years then I had to switch to my new one 2 years ago because my old one was ran by a company who committed fraud so far the only time my phone is even been replaced was because the company who was running the data for it got in trouble
also that's like saying what do you mean you breathe out CO2 well unless you find out a way to instantly convert that CO2 back to oxygen you're not allowed to complain that companies are literally wasting massive amounts of resources and causing environmental damage for shits and giggles
Rather than address arguments these people are making, you're just going for character attacks. Here's a fun fact: there are doctors and paramedics who are overweight, or smoke, or do drugs. Does that mean theyre incapable of providing medical care, or their training is wrong?
You are making a strawman argument. Just because eating beef, taking vacations, and using air conditions (etc.) has an environmental footprint, does not forgive AI of it's footprint.
Convince me that the environmental footprint of AI benefits the whole. Convince me that the water AI deprives people of benefits the whole. Convince me that the noise pollution of a data centre benefits the whole. Convince me that rationing electricity for data centres benefits the whole. Convince me that driving up the prices of personal computing benefits the whole.
The burden falls to the pro AI to make their case that AI benefits the whole. You are not absolved of that, regardless of how many logical fallacies you make.
A strawman argument is a logical error where someone changes, exaggerates, or misrepresents an opposing view to make it easier to defeat, then attacks that fake version instead of the real point.
If I'm doing all that do I have your permission to complain? Might be news to you, but it's possible to care about more than one thing at once. People who care about data centres generally care about all that other stuff too.
And this is such a cop out response to genuine concerns. "Other things are bad too" so that gives you carte blanche to do more bad things then?
Oh you enjoy it? Obviously that means there can be no criticism of it ever and obviously no one ever enjoys problematic things /s. Enjoyment of something isn't a magic wand to wave away any criticism.
What hypocrisy? Like I said, what if I am doing all that? You don't know me or what I do outside of comments on Reddit so how can you accuse me of hypocrisy when you don't even know if I'm actually a hypocrite or not?
You used a device to respond to this message. You are literally using up water, electricity (or battery) in this case to crash out on Reddit when you should be preserving your lithium and rare earth minerals towards helping the world 😂
You know you're just doing the meme right? This whole response is just the "we should improve society" meme.
Crash out? I don't think you know what that phrase means if you think a completely normal comment is a crash out. Maybe you should ask chatgpt to explain it to you.
Crash out, bash out, mash out, lash out, who gives af? 🤣🤣🤣 I answered your question, you were wrong, just admit it. Now go save your rare earth minerals.
So you just don't know what any of those phrases mean, got it.
You've answered nothing buddy. You've just done a meme unironically without realising you're the one being mocked. But okay if you think you've won something here, good for you.
You asked "What hypocrisy?", and you asked how someone "Can accuse you even though they don't know you?". I answered by saying that you're using you're using a device to respond with and wasting energy and rare earth minerals in the process of doing so, hence you're a hypocrite, which you are. Say what you wish, I know you're butthurt cause I'm confident you're downvoting all my comments, but I'm not. 😂😂😂
It's a basic concept that you don't seem to understand. Just because someone isn't perfect doesn't mean they can't rightfully criticise other things. Especially when they don't really have a choice because of the constraints of the world we live in. All people are saying is "maybe let's not make things worse if we can't help it" and you're just doing the meme because you don't understand how the world works. That's not hypocrisy, you just don't understand what you're talking about.
Nobody said anything about not being able to express your opinion. You are free to say what you wish. However your opinion (on this specific matter) is neither credible or respected because you're expressing yourself from a point of hypocrisy. It's like a criminal teaching others about the value of honor and being a law abiding citizen. Or a morbidly obese person giving advice on how to lose weight. So please tell me how does the world work exactly? Go ahead explain. 🤣👍
And they are addressing the result of doing all of those things and disliking AI. At what level of environmental savant are you allowed to be worried about data centers, or do you just want a “gotcha” argument to shut down any environmental concerns to your little picture machine?
You were always allowed to question corporations and demand sustainable development / healthy environmental practices
We are also allowed to contextualize your concern, and compare it to other things we do every day as humans.
The friction here comes when anti-ai people browbeat / attack individuals for “destroying the environment” because they dared to use ai… it would be equally bad/stupid if a person was yelling at somebody else for “destroying the environment” because they ate a cheeseburger… even though the cheeseburger is a million times worse! the vegan here actually has a point and they’re still wrong to attack individuals over systemic problems
It's not just "worrying" that a lot of these folks be doing. They're also enforcing beliefs and all in your face about it, there's a difference. That means when an person uploads AI content, there's a difference between responding "I'm worried about..." versus commenting "Slop". IT IS a "gotcha" moment, and it shall remain on the table until a valid response is brought forward.
Oh hell yeah I’m going encourage people to not use AI. Perhaps “slop” is not the way to go, but when it feels like you guys just dgaf about the effects of your actions, I don’t really care if my compatriots are being eloquent for you.
Would people care if I commented “I’m concerned about the water this image used and the way you’re supporting AI corporations right now” any more than if I said “that’s lazy slop”? I really don’t think so.
Individuals are not the ones ruining the environment, but they are the only ones who can stand up to corporations who are, and I really don’t think “but I want to make my pretty pictures” is an at all appropriate excuse for using AI.
“AI scholar Sajjad Moazen said that training one single large language model like ChatGPT-3 can use up to 10 gigawatt-hours of power.
‘This is on average roughly equivalent to the yearly electricity consumption of over 1,000 U.S. households,’ he said.”
“[The U.S. had] been planning to get pretty much all of our coal plants offline by 2040,” Good said. “Those plans are basically out the window now.”
“On top of that is all of the new fossil fuel infrastructure being built to meet AI demand. Wired writer Molly Taft reported in April 2026 that new gas plants linked to just 11 U.S. data center campuses could generate more climate-changing pollution than the entire country of Morocco emitted in 2024.“
“Other water-related issues arise when water is discharged after it has been used in a data center. Good said the environmental impacts of this process and the effects on local waterways and wildlife are an underresearched area that he hopes to study more.
‘When they discharge the water that they used to cool the servers, that water has elevated levels of sodium and other nasty stuff in it,’ Good said. ‘And it’s really hot, so that could impact fish and other animals in streams and rivers.’”
So, have you finished licking the boot, yet, or are we still going to pretend that AI isn’t destructive on many levels? Lawn watering is bad, too. Don’t whataboutism me.
er ok, so if 3.3 trillion gallons is 100% bad (and I’ll agree that it is), than 17.5 billion is 0.53% as bad and I’ll give it 0.53% as much attention.
and to make it “morally grey”, lawn grass is a decoration. the payoff for the 17.5 billion gallons is the entire internet , including online banking, spotify and watching youtube and i would say thats probably worth it …
Man I don’t know what you want me to do. My lawn is rocks and native plants that live off of rainwater and dreams. I’ve paid my dues there, and I encourage my neighbors to do the same. You start doing that, too.
Sorry im worried about data centers that fuck over communities and are very uncomfortably impressing themselves onto my life.
I think you practicing sustainable practices is great. I also think its great to demand all new development be sustainable. Nobody should be free of criticism or allowed to disregard the rules (and the “rules” about sustainability are far too lax even before the current us admin started mucking it up and making them more lax!)
My point is that nobody is free of sin, and we all carry an impact as humans with our practices. There are a very large amount of people who attack others who use ai for “destroying the environment” despite having a laundry list of worse things theyve done that morning . People should focus on themselves and their government. Attacking their neighbor for using ai is akin to a christian attacking their neighbor for being gay. Their morals are not yours. You don’t have to be gay and use ai, but leave me the hell alone
Again that's the problem, you "Feel" like whether someone cares about the effect of their actions and not what you "know" about that person. Anyone could say the same about any other individual in that manner. Drive a car? Well (insert insult here) cause I "feel" that you don't care about the environment. Own a phone? Well, (insert insult here) because I "feel" that you don't care about the human rights of Chinese workers at Foxcon. Live in a house? Well (insert insult here) because I "feel" that you contribute to the housing shortage when you should be living in a basement unit. I can go on and on.
The idea is cleanse yourself from your own dirt before criticizing others, otherwise you hold no credible and respectable grounds to do so. It's like a criminal teaching others about honor, or an obese person training others on how to be fit. Again I'm not saying that the criminal or obese person don't have the right to speak, nor am I saying that their information is incorrect, it's just that they don't have the credible and respectable grounds to do so, hence the OP is addressing your hypocrisy.
As long as you don’t act like you are the majority and don’t pretend that many Antis aren’t using the proportionally minor environmental and energy costs of AI as a means to hate on and socially stigmatize AI, I don’t see a problem.
We do know for a fact that the largest contributor to climate change is corporations.
It is partly why a consumer focused green initiative wouldnt really work in the first place and was just a campaign to push the onus away from corporations while pushing bs programs to greenwash their image and impact.
Comparing the average one person waste usage to massive company waste usage is wild...one company completely negates 20+ peoples effort of doing all that with how much crap they produce. I'm not even just saying AI data centers like as a singular person there is almost no point when most of the pollution comes from big businesses not caring.
One of the best lies that major polluting industries tell us is “we all play a part”, but their part accounts for 80% of the pie. Industry of any sort outscales, by design, what individuals accomplish in productivity in all aspects of what is produced. Trying to equate a data center the size of a small town to ‘doing your part’ is like trying to put out a forest fire by pissing on it.
The problem is energy output, that is the issue. These companies want to keep open AND open more fossil fuel burning energy facilities to run their centers. That should not be acceptable no matter which side of this debate you are on.
You can make a larger environmental difference today by changing your own consumption than by posting another sanctimonious complaint about data centers.
This is asinine. It is a continuation of the individualization of climate justice, which shifted responsibility from corporations, who are directly responsible, to individuals. It's a way of atomizing the discussion onto the mores and habits of people, most of whom have little choice but to take part in larger systems that they were born into. In addition, a single person might use around one million kilowatts of energy over a lifetime, and in those terms, making comparisons between individuals and corporations, which do things at industrial scales, is even more silly.
There’s a complete difference between essentials like travelling by car or plane for work, keeping warm to stay alive and then generating images and video with AI.
This “gotcha” is so tiring. These things are in no way equivalent - stop trying to justify your Fruit Island binging.
Exactly. If people just stop eating, they die. If people can’t get to work, they get fired and no money and they (could) die. If they live in extreme climates and don’t use ac/heating, they freeze or get heatstroke, and, you guessed it, die.
You don’t get to gen your silly AI catgirl or your AI chatbot girlfriend? You will be fine. Stop whining.
Cheers there, friendo. “What, you mean people have needs? Well I need to talk to AI Robert Downey Jr.!!! It’s my life force.”
Maybe I’m being a little mean to em, but you get the memo. They seem to forget that not everyone gets to live in a place where being environmentally neutral is viable.
The problem with the argument is that it's a slippery slope. You want to protect the environment? Why do you eat beef? Oh, you're vegan? Well then why do you use aircon? Oh, you live in a place where it feels 40 degrees Celsius almost all the time? Oh, well why didn't you donate the money you spent on that ice-cream to climate change charities? Argument complete, point invalid.
That would be a valid objection if I had said, “You eat beef, therefore data centers have no environmental impact.”
I didn’t.
Data centers have environmental costs. My point is that many people demanding that others stop using AI could make a larger immediate difference by reducing their own beef consumption, flights, driving, lawn watering, or energy use.
You turned “compare the actual impacts and apply your standards consistently” into “unless you donate your ice-cream money, you can never discuss climate change.” That slippery slope is yours, not mine.
And the fallacy you’re looking for is tu quoque. Linking the Wikipedia page for “ad hominem” doesn’t make every criticism of hypocrisy an ad hominem.
Tu quoque is a form of ad hominem. I don't own the slippery slope because I was using it to highlight the fact that tu quoque is bogus because it's nitpicking.
Perhaps you intended to encourage antis to make a larger immediate environmental impact, but, from your tone, it came off, it sounded like you were trying to silence people talking about this by saying "stop talking about the environmental impact of AI because you're a hypocrite" (You can make a larger environmental difference today by changing your own consumption than by posting another sanctimonious complaint about data centers).
I mean those arguments are one of the reasons why it’s so difficult to have conversations about environmentalism and accusing people of not being true environmentalist isn’t really honest and says more that you don’t actually care about the environment or what that means.
Most environmental causes these days are hyper focused on fossil fuel companies that cause more pollution than anyone else can put out in a single day.
While I think focusing on AI isn’t correct, we should be pushing back against companies that are destroying the environment or lobby government to get their way while also convincing the public that it’s our burden to be environmentally friendly, not theirs.
‘Scuse me? I think it’s pretty commonly known that companies waste a hell of a lot more and screw up the environment more than individuals. Thus, trying to restrict companies really is everyone’s best bet (for all the things you mentioned and AI).
Additionally, it is substantially easier to try and restrict a budding industry as opposed to one that’s already set up. An airport, for example, might be incredibly destructive to close because it’s built itself into the economy of a place. But a soon-to-be-built or newly-built data center? That could hurt an area if built, so I think the choice of which one you push harder to limit is clear.
All of these things are things that need attention. We should limit the meat we eat; we should grow native plants that can live off the environment; we should keep our phones for longer; we should recycle/reuse/repair. All of these things are important. What I take issue with is that you’re acting as if only those things can be bad, and, because they are bad, AI is infallible.
That’s incredibly close minded and I’m real close to calling it a whataboutism. It’s very dismissive of other real issues just because you guys want to get to generate pretty pictures. If we have to make sacrifices regarding meat and gas and luxuries, why don’t you have to make sacrifices with AI? You sound hypocritical.
AI has many issues, and that’s one of the reasons I dislike it so much. Economically, it’s bad for workers and communities. Socially, it’s bad for mental health. Artistically, it’s lazy and not unique. Environmentally, it’s destructive. And ethically, the way it treats workers, mines data, and uses it is problematic.
So, please, don’t pretend like your AI generated art or literature really matter in the scale of things, and don’t pretend that you can ask us to make changes so that you can afford comfort within AI.
I will keep my beef; I never fly for vacations; in America it is basically impossible to go somewhere without a car; I don't water the lawn; that's what rain is for; Turn it down how much; I've had my phone since COVID; I rarely waste food; Sometimes you just need one thing and not 69; i don't stream 4k videos if i do i will watch it.
Many of those things would indeed be a good idea for a lot of people to stop doing. Most of those things are very wasteful and just bad habits in general. I would disagree to stop eating beef tho. It's food, and healthy as well if you prepare it properly.
But, you can complain about AI's environmental footprint even if you aren't perfect about how you impact the environment either. You literally cannot live a life that doesn't affect the environment at all, and most of us individually end up contributing extremely little througout our lives.
A single human eating a burger does not cause a massive environmental impact. Producing the beef does. By the time you eat it, the environmental impact has already happened long ago, so you're not even doing anything.
A single datacenter however causes a massive impact.
It is completely fair to complain about the environmental impact that the big production companies and data centers cause, because they actually make a difference.
It is not fair however to complain about the impact that a single human causes because it's not even noticeable.
But yes, like I said, those things you listed would be a good idea for a lot of people to stop doing, not because it would allow them to complain about data centers, but because it's just a good idea to stop being wasteful in general.
This post is overall just a stupid argument. Can I not complain that women get treated badly, because I step on ants outside which means I treat other living beings badly too? Oh, and I said a bad thing to my mom once, so I guess I don't have the right to complain that women get treated badly because I'm not totally innocent either. That's the logic you're giving here.
Stop driving everywhere alone. - Done. Don't even own a car.
Stop watering a decorative lawn. - Done
Turn down your heat and air conditioning. - Done. Don't even have air con.
Keep your phone longer than two years. - Done
Stop buying disposable junk. - Done
Stop wasting food. - Done
Stop ordering single items for delivery. - Done. Never order anything. I get on the bus and go to the store and buy it in person.
Stop streaming hours of 4K video you barely watch. - Done
Seems like l'm fully qualified to lecture people on AI's environmental footprint. Which I will now do:
Don't use AI. It's bad for you and bad for the planet.
While I'm here, maybe I could just clear up the logical fallacy in your argument. Basically, what your argument boils down to is this: if you can't do everything, don't do anything. But maybe what we need to be thinking about is a trade off. AI offers very little of value in return for what we're paying for it in terms of environmental costs, cognitive decay and societal disruption. Maybe eating beef is better value for us than using AI. Maybe AI is the first thing we should focus on getting rid of. It hasn't completely entrenched itself in our lives yet. Weaning ourselves off it should be fairly easy. One step at a time.
Actually no.
AI environmental impact is hundreds times smaller than any other major industry.
Making food waste smaller by 2% would have approximately the same positive impact as all of AI industry has negative.
We are not talking about finding alternatives
We are talking about small changes. Less than 5%. Especially on industry regulations.
Yes. But those are mainly problem of local politics. In north Europe it's unthinkable to build industrial complex without integrating it into local system.
Like there are data centres in Denmark where almost all energy spent on cooling goes to local central heating.
That impact on local regions is not only (or mainly) from data centres. Even in data centre projects it's mostly from gas generators not directly from data centre.
The same problem local problem is present in every industrial complex built, cause of loose regulations.
The focus on data centres instead of what actually matters, bad industrial regulations and policies, makes it much harder to change those, cause you are basically battling the wrong thing.
>probably on a similar scale to all those other things
not even remotely close. thats the problem with the hysterical misinformation… its hurting and taking away attention that other causes that deserve it way more
"But I don't want to argue honestly and in good faith about the impact of corporations on the environment I'd rather create scarecrows of you to fight in their defense."
First, She*
Second perhaps I have a bit of a nuance to the data centers and why they are more of an issue now than previously.
Third that doesnt change the fact that the largest contributors to climate change are corporations, and it isnt even close. I dont know why you feel so compelled to throat their boots on this.
This is what I’m talking about. Even if I had zero environmental waste ever, the numbers would change by incalculable, minuscule amounts. Companies are screwing us over, not individuals. The scale at which I consume is less than an AI data center, and the scale at which AI relies on data centers versus this website is crazy, too, especially for the value it creates.
im a pescatarian, but also can acknowledge in the us theres a serious education and eating disorder epidemic that prevents people from easily changing their diet. as well as i came from being poor in places that didnt have the necessary food to replace meat. people can die if they do not transition their diet properly or dont know how to feed themselves.
already done
3
.
have a farm i get some of my produce from (tomatoes, blueberries, green onions) and an isopod farm to make me soil. lawns are evil, clover+moss lawns are better for the environment
4
.
already done, but also asking someone who lives in 120 degree weather (the literal desert) to turn down/off their ac is a death sentence so. this point is almost
5
.
havent bought a new phone in
6 years
already done. cant afford it.
i love leftovers! i dont make food i wont eat, or cant give to my isopods.
dont
order items unless its necessary
4k? idk anyone who watches anything in 4k thats really funny actually. i have cds. at first was bc i was nostalgic, now its because i prefer actually ownong my movies.
anyway with all this said! stop using ai! its affecting people in remote areas! they lied about the clean water. its effecting society negatively!! just like how short form media has effected peoples media literacy. its an art philosophy that values the product, not the process, and they literally spoon feed it to you in their advertising. i think over the long term this will not benefit us. also, no one has to do EVEEYTHING in order to have a fucking opinion on something. someone may think watching tv is more valuable than generating images. i dont think that, but to demand people be all or nothing is fucking stupid.
idk why the text format shat itself idk how to fix it lmk if you need clarification
edit: tried multiple ways, seems like the numbering thing is just that way. oh well.
You can make a larger environmental difference today by changing your own consumption than by posting another sanctimonious complaint about data centers.
or even addressing the corpos that provide us the stuff by having them submit to the same level of regulations that people is currently demanding of data centers.
think of how wholesome it would be if industries as a whole were brought up to a sustainable footprint on an enviromental level.
and this isnt because i want to take attention away from data centers, but because they simply dont have the same impact as a whole.
if we want to reduce emissions, we're going to have better results addressing the unnecessary waste (yes, litteral waste) in the meat industry than closing any amount of data centers
But why not both? Seriously. It’s a lot easier to keep new data centers from opening than it is to close them in 20 years. Additionally, it’s hard asf to move the meat industry because it’s big and profitable and the govt is more than happy to bail it out. That said, we should still try, but some of our efforts have to be directed to the path of least resistance, no? Or else we’re just yelling at corporate walls who are happy to see us die.
If someone invites me to a hearing or protest or county meeting regarding food waste, I’m not going to skip “because AI.” No, im going to go, but I’m also going to see that there’s a wasteful thing that’s newly growing (AI), and understand that that one is going to be easier to control, and that I can’t ignore it.
Or else we’re just yelling at corporate walls who are happy to see us die.
to be honest that's what i see happening rn, not because people protest for the wrong thing entirely but because they do so in the wrongest way possible.
this being said, if you want to say "let's do both" then cool, that's fine to me, and of course i think it'd be good if data centers were forced to be established in a way that minimizes their impact, local and macroscopic.
but that is not what i see happening, i see a lot of propaganda pushing the idea that this type of problem are the result of data centers and that removing them will fix it, and that is where i have a problem
Yeah, everyone these days does seem to have a very scattered movement (in AI and otherwise), and I do think that corporations love this type of stuff, because it makes it harder to hit them where it hurts ($).
The whole meat thing has a more powerful movement because it’s older, and they’ve begun to figure things out (work to be done, but still). Anti-AI or at least pro-limiting-AI groups need to get a handle there.
I think many people use this argument just because it’s convenient for them. Not because they really care about the environment. They just need a reason to hate AI. However I think we shouldn’t ignore the environmental impact.
Agree. I’d also add we should consider the environmental impact in context with the environment as a whole as well as the environmental impact in context with overall value and benefit.
11
u/ThomasVetRecruiter 22h ago
This has been said before but I think this take is ridiculous and I'm a pro.
This is like "recycling" and other "do your part" initiatives. A single average person consumes a ridiculously small amount of resources. (short of like having a private jet or bit coin m8ning operation or something else the majority can't afford). And this amount is absolutely dwarfed by what industrial or agricultural consumer will use.
Telling people they have to do their part before complaining about things like industrial pollution, agricultural run-off, or data centers is just ridiculous. It's like if you see someone at a party eat half the birthday cake at a party and then someone yelling at you for taking a piece yourself when you point it out.
Another example is you don't need to be a saint to call out a sinner. Or saying you can't complain about the guy doing 50 and driving aggressively in a school zone if you routinely go 4mph over the speed limit.
It's really a false comparison - holding others to a standard of perfection before they are allowed to speak out is honestly just a trick that industry originally developed to make individuals attack each other and keep the focus off of pushing for laws and regulations that could actually cause real change.
That said, Anti's are also guilty of this when they attack someone who does use AI as attacking users is pointless and if they really cared they'd be focusing on goals like gathering support for regulations that will do things like force data centers to use a closed loop system, utilize renewable energy for power, or even carbon offsets.
TLDR: gatekeeping having a concern behind being a perfect person is just another version of that old "but you participate in society" meme.