←back to thread

I Am An AI Hater

(anthonymoser.github.io)
443 points BallsInIt | 1 comments | 27 Aug 25 19:10 UTC | HN request time: 0.3s | 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 #
1. bayindirh ◴[27 Aug 25 21:01 UTC] No.45045212[source]▶
HPC admin here.

A "small" 7 rack, SOTA CPU cluster uses ~700KW of energy for computing, plus there's the energy requirements of cooling. GPUs use much more in the same rack space.

In DLC settings you supply 20-ish degree C water from primary circuit to heat exchanger, and get it back at 40-ish degree C, and then you pump this heat to environment, plus the thermodynamic losses.

This is a "micro" system when compared to big boys.

How there can be no environmental harm when you need to run a power plant on-premises and pump that much heat in much bigger scale 24/7 to environment.

Who are we kidding here?

When this is done for science and intermittently, both the grid and the environment can tolerate this. When you run "normal" compute systems (e.g. serving GMail or standard cloud loads), both the grid and environment can tolerate this.

But running at full power and pumping this much energy in and heat out to train AI and run inference is a completely different load profile, and it is not harmless.

> the cognitive harms and AI supported suicides

Extensive use of AI is shown to change brain's neural connections and makes some areas of brain lazy. There are a couple of papers.

There was a 16 year old boy's ChatGPT fueled death on the front page today, BTW.

> This is the best argument on the page imo, and even that is highly debated.

My blog is strictly licensed with a non-commercial and no-derivatives license. AI companies gets my text, derives it and sells it. No consent, no questions asked.

Same models consume GPL and Source Available code the same and offer their derivations to anyone who pays. Again, infringing both licenses in the process.

Consent & Copyright is a big problem in AI, where the companies wants us to believe otherwise.