This is off topic, I’m talking about the environmental footprint of data centers. In the 2010s I remember when responding to RFPs I had to specify the carbon footprint of our servers. ESG was all the rage and every big tech company was trying to appear green. Fast forward to today where companies, investors, and obviously the administration are more than fine with data centers burning all the oil/gas/coal power that can be found.

I don't consider it reasonable to want regulation for tools that are as of now as potentially destructive as free access to Google search.

The part where they specifically address Pike's "argument" [0] is where they express that in their view, the energy use issue is a data center problem, not a generative AI one:

> nothing he complains about is specific to GenAI

(see also all their other scattered gesturings towards Google and their already existing data centers)

A lot can be said about this take, but claiming that it doesn't directly and specifically address Pike's "argument", I simply don't think is true.

I generally find that when (hyper?)focusing on fallacies and tropes, it's easy to lose sight of what the other person is actually trying to say. Just because people aren't debating in a quality manner, doesn't mean they don't have any points in there, even if those points are ultimately unsound or disagreeable.

Let's not mistake form for function. People aren't wrong because they get their debating wrong. They're wrong because they're wrong.

[0] in quotes, because I read a rant up there, not an argument - though I'm sure if we zoom way in, the lines blur

having made Go amd parts pf Unix gives him no authority in the realms that his criticisms are aimed at though - environment science, civil engineering, resource management etc

not having a good spam filter is a kinda funny reason for somebody to have a crash out.