- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://discuss.online/post/32799122
I have issues with this article, but the point about the environment is interesting.
cross-posted from: https://discuss.online/post/32799122
I have issues with this article, but the point about the environment is interesting.
Author rests the entire argument on ignoring the cumulative effects of individual use on a large scale. Whole lotta writing for such a small idea.
By the same logic, it follows:
IC engines are not bad for the environment.
Consuming meat is not bad for the environment.
A single vote has no effect on the outcome of an election.
One official taking a bribe isn’t a big deal.
pitiful, abject nonsense
I think that a lot of the volume of GenAI queries.are unsolicited. Like google doing one for every search. Ban that and the datacenter volume drops a lot
I found the arguments about the environment convincing - he really does a great breakdown and comparison of other, individualist carbon emission sources and clearly explains why one person’s heavy Chatgpt usage is nothing compared to, say, using a laptop for an hour. I still hate Chatgpt and the rest for all the OTHER reasons that we all know by now, but on the environmental point, I felt this article was persuasive. Overly long, but persuasive.