- cross-posted to:
- fuck_ai@lemmy.world
- aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- fuck_ai@lemmy.world
- aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
They could all lay themselves off
Banana pants for scale.
I think there are valuable, narrow use cases for AI as it currently is. It should not be released into the wild willy-nilly in some scheme by greedy, irresponsible billionaires to profit from. It should be strictly regulated and controlled, perhaps allowed only to researchers who are trained to use it responsibly. I imagine it would be useful for suggesting novel solutions to problems that people would eventually come up with on their own, but LLMs would present many more now for consideration. It could act as a hallucinating muse for people who understand its limitations and know the application well enough to know what to reject out of hand as wrong and irresponsible.
I’m quite a fan of AI actually for only the small things. I mainly use it for stock price projections, looking for earnings report and prospecting for potential stocks to buy. I still verify the information of course. But I still want the AI bubble to pop because it is soooo overrated and I could bet on shorting the crash.
They’ve already lost social permission by making us hate their OS. This wording feels the same as calling lies “alternative facts.” You just rename"hatred of our OS" with “lack of social permission.” God PR speak is so annoying
Microsoft committed too much too soon and now they’re desperate.
They wrote a “Happy Birthday” sign with a big ass B, big ass I, big ass R… Oh, no!
It’s wild to think that ‘actually being useful’ is considered a backup plan and not the starting point. Usually, you prove the value before you use all the resources, not the other way around.
The epitome of a solution looking for a problem. Microsoft and others have dropped almost trillions into AI. With nothing to show for it.
It is useful, if you have the freedom to use it when and how you want. Not when Microsoft says so.
Need a third button, ruin society to be pressing.
He’s like every other CEO. Currently pressing it with his erection at the profits and suffering of poor people.
lose ‘social permission’
So when was that permission given?
Today in “billionaire says the most blatantly evil and deranged shit ever publicly and no one cares”…
Bananapants.
Puts that in my pocket for later
Motherfuckers have been buying people out of their homes, emptying entire neighborhoods just to get access to land near power plants and near water sources to build their AI data centers, they’ve been polluting drinking water sources and siphoning the electricity of entire towns, and polluting like crazy, and they’re affraid society might not accept their useless AI porn generating bullshit? Because let’s face it, that’s what it’s mostly used for.
Where did they buy neighborhoods to bulldoze them?
Here’s one example:
There’s also Itasca in Illinois
I bet you can find more
They reportedly paid an average of around $950,000 per house — which was significantly above what that land would have been worth as residential
Why are you trying to make it seem like the homeowners have been screwed over? It makes no fucking sense.
There is a reason they all sold. But that it is happening is still crazy. As if there is no empty space anywhere?
Wow wow wow crazy.
Wow is right, those people made a massive profit on their homes.
Motherfuckers have been buying people out of their homes
You know those people to choose to sell their property, right?
How are they polluting?
They are wrecking the energy grid and messing with the water supply, but how are they polluting the water supply?
Here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8gy7lv448o
Also there are talks of re-opening old coal electric power plants to feed these data centers.
And I agree that coal power plants are very polluting. However, the pollution comes from the source of power.
However, the pollution comes from the source of power.
Unless the AI is running on fairy dust, its energy use is very much a part of how sustainable it is.
It is important to anticipate the argument that they are getting the power from renewable sources.
But they aren’t. What they could be doing is irrelevant, none of the big ones are running 100% (or probably even 50%) green energy.
running 100%
Of course not, no company is. That’s not viable yet.
This is anticipating the arguments in front of the planning boards.
I get that a lot of data centers use coal and other polluting sources of power. The problem is how that gets represented when trying to create local opposition.
The profitability of a power plant is to some degree determined by its location. It costs more to move power farther. As renewables get cheaper, fossil fuel plant margins get lower, and in many cases, it’s enough to shut them down.
Now you can’t move a coal plant closer to the people who use electricity, but if you build a data center close to a coal plant, suddenly, it’s a viable business model.
Similar reason aluminum refineries are often built near power plants. Except aluminum actually helps people.
I’m more focusing on what the source of pollution is to make sure arguments are better made online to fight data centers.
The power required for data centers can be polluting, but building a data center in an area isn’t guaranteed to cause a drop in air quality since the builder could choose a different energy source to power the data center.
Except you’re missing the reality of the situation for the sake of theory. They pointed out quite rightly that these new data centres are not using clean energy and are, in fact, propping up old fossil-fuel plants which should be closing to make way for clean energy.
They could choose a lot of stuff, but since it’s a choice and not forced upon them they are jumping on the quicker options. Why wait for a bunch of renewable sources to be built when you could simply use the existing, shitty stuff and get your shit built quicker? Corporations don’t give a fuck about anything but money and they will let people fucking die if it would save them even 0.01% of their annual revenue. It wouldn’t the first or even the thousandth time it’s happened.
Corporations also misinterpret facts for their benefit.
I can easily see people make the argument that data centers affect air quality because they are powered by coal power plants and the data center rep is going to reply “we aren’t building a coal power plant at this data center site; that’s just opposition fear mongering” and now it becomes harder to get people to believe you on other issues.
To second /u/Soup. Look at the average bitcoin mine in China. They’re largely coal powered.
https://www.sehn.org/sehn/2025/8/14/data-centers-and-the-water-crisis
You know that using water turns it into wastewater right? Whether it’s cooling computers or turning a turbine, the water is contaminated by metals as a direct result of the process.
You know that you can make a water cooled system where the water used to cool system doesn’t touch the inner machinery, right?
It is more efficient to run an internal system that doesn’t interface with the outside except through radiators. The radiators interface with the external water supply, usually causing the water to evaporate since it is a relatively cheap way to remove thermal energy from a system.
After all, if the water stayed liquid, they could find other ways to cool the water to be reused. The problem with data centers is that they are literally boiling away the local water supply.
That goes for the piping. But it’s it true for the pumps? Are they using pumps that adhere to strict drinking water standards?
Why does it matter when they are going to boil off the water?
You make a point; data centers are indeed boiling away fresh water reserves. But you’re also asking what the direct source of pollution is, in order to more effectively argue against the data centers
Because these data centers require energy and cooling, while also working with “razor-thin margins” of AI competition… they are reinvigorating coal and fossil fuels, through use of an existent infrastructure
But also, nobody asked for them to dump billions into this… though dumping the same amount of effort and capital into renewable energy (as well as curbing climate disaster), isn’t apparently as readily profitable
It’s hard to directly blame “increased pollution” on data centers, because that would be silly to allow such linear blame to be seen, in all the grift. And could also decrease overall profitability if the general public made the connection
The pollution comes from their use of existing infrastructure, while doubly, they could be building renewable infrastructure. It’s just not profitable in such a corporate world to do anything but scrape the remnants of a dying world
Edit: Don’t forget to recycle!
I’m making sure that the argument is going to be understood by lay people.
It is relatively easy to get people to rally against building a coal power plant in their community. My concern is that people are going to say not to build a data center because it is going to be powered by coal and the data center rep is going to say that a coal power plant isn’t going to be built on site.
That data center would still get built because there is going to be a performative meeting where planning officials ban building the power plant, but then a data center operator buys a coal power plant about to be decommissioned and decides to keep it going to fuel the data center without having to go through the planning hurdles of getting that plant built.
I’m just trying to make sure that the arguments make sense to people who aren’t thinking through it as much as you.
Many residents’ electricity bills are skyrocketing due to the predicted demand of data centers. It’s not as hard to convince people to oppose building more if they know it’s due to more data centers. The problem is convincing many that it’s the reason the bills are so high and not blaming windmill or solar power. The last part isn’t always easy.
I completely agree, and it is a good idea to highlight that there will be increased utility bills by allowing for data center construction.
Then don’t focus on the pollution, but the fresh water reserves being depleted. Ya got sound thoughts, to me; I wouldn’t try to complicate it (if I could help it)
Lay people lie where under scrutiny. Meet them somewheres in the middle, if you’re so determined. We’re uninformed, not incapable
Exactly. There are good reasons to argue against building data centers, including impacting fresh water resources.
I’m surprised we don’t have a story yet about a town of people weilding pitchforks and torches and breaking into a data center.
They’re being paid above market value for their homes. And who knows what other kinds of pressure they’re facing.
“Pressure” being an amazing deal they wouldn’t have gotten otherwise.
You’re COMPLETELY removing any responsibility from the sellers and that is just ridiculous.
Would you pissed if someone offered you double the value of your home? Wish would that happen to me.
I hereby revoke the social permission.
Social permission revoked. Please set the money piles on fire.
I see ai having 1 purpose
Help blind people
Image recognition is amazingly useful for blind people
It’s also good at assisting with software development, no thanks to Microsoft though when it’s Google’s Gemini model and Anthropic’s Opus model used by copilot
In a similar vein, machine learning is also being used to improve cochlear implants
They could produce something useful instead?!
But think of the shareholders!
Boycott companies trying tonpush for ai, let tjem lose more money for thinking they can spit in the face of the consumer, Now THAT is useful
