←back to thread

I Am An AI Hater

(anthonymoser.github.io)
443 points BallsInIt | 4 comments | 27 Aug 25 19:10 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
dpoloncsak ◴[27 Aug 25 20:23 UTC] No.45044706[source]▶
> Critics have already written thoroughly about the environmental harms, the reinforcement of bias and generation of racist output, the cognitive harms and AI supported suicides, the problems with consent and copyright...

This paragraph really pisses me off and I'm not sure why.

> Critics have already written thoroughly about the environmental harms

Didn't google just prove there is little to no environmental harm, INCLUDING if you account for training?

> the reinforcement of bias and generation of racist output

Im uneducated here, honestly. I don't ask a lot of race-based questions to my LLMS I guess

>the cognitive harms and AI supported suicides

There is constant active rhetoric around the sycophancy, and ways to reduce this, right? OpenAI just made a new benchmark specifically for this. I won't deny it's an issue but to act like it's being ignored by the industry is a miss completely.

>the problems with consent and copyright

This is the best argument on the page imo, and even that is highly debated. I agree with "AI is performing copyright infringement" and see constant "AI ignores my robots.txt". I also grew up being told that ANYTHING on the internet was for the public, and copyright never stopped *me* from saving images or pirating movies.

Then the rest touches on ways people will feel about or use AI, which is obviously just as much conjecture as anything else on the topic. I can't speak for everyone else, and neither can anyone else.

replies(15): >>45044737 #>>45044796 #>>45044852 #>>45044866 #>>45044914 #>>45044917 #>>45044933 #>>45044982 #>>45045000 #>>45045057 #>>45045130 #>>45045208 #>>45045212 #>>45045303 #>>45051745 #
sindriava ◴[27 Aug 25 20:31 UTC] No.45044796[source]▶
I appreciate this response. The environmental impact is such a red herring it's not even funny. Somehow these statements never include the impact of watching Netflix shows or doing data processing manually.
replies(3): >>45044850 #>>45045063 #>>45046675 #
didibus ◴[27 Aug 25 20:34 UTC] No.45044850[source]▶
They might hate those too?

It's pretty clear there are impacts, AI needs energy, consumes material, creates trash.

You probably just don't mind it. The fact is still fact, the conclusion is different, you assess it's not a big concern in the grand scheme of it and worth it for the pros. The author doesn't care much for the pros, so then any environmental impact is a net loss for them.

I feel both take are rational.

replies(2): >>45044892 #>>45045104 #
sindriava ◴[27 Aug 25 20:37 UTC] No.45044892[source]▶
They might be rational, but taking things out of context as much as happens with any AI / environment narrative gives off a strong "arsenic-free cauliflower" smell.
replies(2): >>45045083 #>>45045122 #
1. didibus ◴[27 Aug 25 20:54 UTC] No.45045122[source]▶
If you take a report like this: https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/ai-has-high-da...

You can:

1. Dismiss it by believing the projections are very wrong and much too high

2. Think 20% of all energy consumed isn't that bad.

3. Find it concerning environmentally

All takes have some weight behind them in my opinion. I don't think this is a case of "arsenic-free cauliflower", maybe unless you claim #1, but that claim can't really invalidate the others on their rational, they make an assumption on the available data and reason of it, the data doesn't show ridiculously small numbers like it does in the cauliflower case.

replies(2): >>45045263 #>>45055825 #
2. sindriava ◴[27 Aug 25 21:04 UTC] No.45045263[source]▶
I can't speak for you but I'm certainly not qualified to opine on the predictions so I won't address the 20% figure since I don't find it relevant.

> data centers account for 1% to 2% of overall global energy demand

So does the mining industry. Part of that data center consumption is the discussion we are having right now.

I find that in general energy doesn't tend to get spent unless there's something to be gained from it. Note that providing something that uses energy but doesn't provide value isn't a counterexample for this, since the greater goal of civilization seems to be discovering valuable parts of the state space, which necessitates visiting suboptimal states absent a clairvoyant heuristic.

I reject the statement that energy use is bad in principle and pending a more detailed ROI analysis of this, I think this branch of the topic has ran its course, at least for me :)

replies(1): >>45045950 #
3. didibus ◴[27 Aug 25 22:09 UTC] No.45045950[source]▶
> so I won't address the 20% figure

Ok, but that's the figure that would be alarming, AI is projected to consume 20% of the global energy production by 2030... That's not like the mining industry...

> I find that in general energy doesn't tend to get spent unless there's something to be gained from it

Yes, you'd fall in the #2 conclusion bucket. This is a value judgement, not a factual or logical contradiction. You accept the trade off and find it worth it. That's totally fair, but in no way does it remove or mitigate the environmental impact argument, it just judges it an acceptable cost.

4. viridian ◴[28 Aug 25 19:08 UTC] No.45055825[source]▶
I starting writing a response to your post, but as I kept writing and investigating, it became clear that the MIT article you linked is just overflowing with false statements, half truths, stretched truths, and unsourced information.

It is legitimately one of the most misleading pieces of press I've read in a while.

The 21% value is unsourced, the single image = full phone charge is wrong in so many ways I had written 3 paragraphs picking apart both the MIT publication and the huggingface paper's methodology, and so on.

I'm happy to be given evidence that AI is ruinous in terms of more than its social effects, but this publication has made me incredibly suspicious of anyone claiming this to be the case.