> [citation needed]

Sure, here ya go:

https://andymasley.substack.com/p/individual-ai-use-is-not-b...

https://blog.giovanh.com/blog/2024/08/18/is-ai-eating-all-th...

https://blog.giovanh.com/blog/2024/09/09/is-ai-eating-all-th...

The first comprehensive environmental audit and analysis performed in conjunction with French environmental agencies and audit environmental audit consultants, which includes every stage of the supply chain, including usually hidden upstream costs: https://mistral.ai/news/our-contribution-to-a-global-environ...

https://andymasley.substack.com/p/for-the-climate-little-thi...

> Disingenuous strawman. Tech CEO's and the like have been exuberant at the idea that "AI" will replace human labor. The entire end-goal of companies like OpenAI is to create a "super-intelligence" that will then generate a return. By definition the AI would be performing labor (services) for capital, outcompeting humans to do so

Isn't that literally the selling point of software, performing something that would otherwise have to be done by humans, namely both keeping calculating research, locating things, transferring information, and so on, using capital instead of labor, transforming labor into capital, and providing more profits as a result?

> Unless OpenAI wants it to just hack every bank account on Earth and transfer it all to them instead? Or something equally farcical

It's extremely funny that you pull this out of your house and say that this is the only way that I could be justified in saying what I'm saying, while accusing me of making a disingenuous straw man. Consult the rod in your own eye before you concern yourself with the speck in mind.

> >So did email.

> "We should improve society somewhat"

> "Ah, but you participate in society! Curious!"

Disengenuous strawman. That comic is used to respond to people that claim that you can't be against something if you also participate in it out of necessity. That's not what I'm doing. I would be fine with it if they blank it condemned all things that enable spam on a massive level, including email, social media, automated phone calls, mail, and so on, while still using those technologies because they have to to live in present society and get the word out. There are people who do that with rigorous intellectual consistency and have been since those things existed. My argument is by condemning one but not the other irrespective of whether they use them or not, they are being ethically inconsistent and it shows a double standard and a biased towards technologies that they're used to over technologies that they aren't. It shows a fundamental reactionary conservatism over an actually well thought through ethical position.