“He just hates GenAI so everything is virtue signaling/a cudgel” is not an assessment. It’s simply dismissing him outright. If they were talking about the merits, they would actually debate whether or not the environmental concerns and such are valid. You can’t just say “you don’t like X so all critiques of X are not just wrong but also inauthentic by default.”

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