| ▲ | dbingham 2 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
This is "whatabboutism" which is a logical fallacy. Someone doesn't have to talk about the climate impacts of cars every time they talk about the climate impacts of AI. Both have climate impacts, independently of each other, and we should be dealing with the climate impacts of both simultaneously. Regardless, don't assume the person you are talking to isn't consistent. Peruse my personal blog and you will see that I, in fact, ran a whole city council campaign on a platform of "to fight climate change we should not be driving". | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | CamperBob2 2 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Someone doesn't have to talk about the climate impacts of cars every time they talk about the climate impacts of AI. Actually they do, because the best way to get cars off the road is to replace many if not most of their occupants with AI. Private ownership of cars is not the problem. The assumption that people have to drive all over the place to get stuff done is the problem. Let's work on that. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||