| |
| ▲ | SR2Z a day ago | parent [-] | | > Not more "revealed choice" BS. There's no free choice I'm not even talking about at work, I'm saying that a large majority of Americans are using AI of their own free will in situations where it's not required but is genuinely useful. The sheer number of people means that a lot of them must also say they're anti-AI, and my point is that whether or not they say they like it they're undeniably choosing to use it. > Personally, I wouldn't mind of someone dropped a couple cluster bombs on each of these AI data centers, after construction is complete, and LLMs just disappeared as a practical technology. This would be great if your goal was limiting AI access to the rich, but I'm pretty sure that would be much worse than democratizing access. > See my reply to the other guy who made the same point before you did. Yeah, and I still don't get it. Do you think that qualified electricians struggle to find work? They generally don't, these skills are in high demand and have been for decades. You really haven't made the case for "after they gain more experience on a difficult and high-paying job, they're gonna be unemployed." Everyone in these comments is complaining about waiting lists and backlogs and you're acting like the opposite is true. | | |
| ▲ | fluoridation a day ago | parent | next [-] | | >I'm not even talking about at work, I'm saying that a large majority of Americans are using AI of their own free will in situations where it's not required but is genuinely useful. The sheer number of people means that a lot of them must also say they're anti-AI, and my point is that whether or not they say they like it they're undeniably choosing to use it. I don't think there's really a contradiction there. You can recognize the utility of something while acknowledging that, on the whole, it'd be better if it didn't exist. | | |
| ▲ | SR2Z a day ago | parent | next [-] | | If people are using it presumably they're getting some value out of it which means that most objections to datacenters are NIMBYism and not some kind of principled stance. Datacenters are fine. They're better than most kinds of industrial buildings, by and large they don't illegally set up fields of gas turbines, and their water usage is really not that bad compared to other large users. They make for a few nice, high-paying jobs. Sure, they're ugly and large, but this is America and we have no shortage of ugly, large buildings. | | |
| ▲ | danans 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > If people are using it presumably they're getting some value out of it which means that most objections to datacenters are NIMBYism and not some kind of principled stance. Something can have a great deal of utility to everyone while simultaneously causing damage to a subset of people. Electricity is universally useful, but anyone downwind of a coal plant is hurt by air pollution even if they benefit from electricity. It's not contradictory for those people to ask for stricter controls on pollutant emissions. Likewise with LLMs, they can provide a lot of utility to enterprises and individuals, while simultaneously causing damage to those individuals. Hordes of now-fragile white collar workers are currently trying to use AI to figure out how not to be rendered obsolete by AI. People who live near proposed datacenter sites are using LLMs, while also facing spiking utility costs due to the AI datacenters, and maybe significant quality of life regressions. Everyone is trying to figure out how to maximize their own benefit from LLMs while simultaneously trying to put the costs of this technological revolution on others, and everyone has different positioning in that race, depending on their skills, adaptability, and privilege. This situation will test all individuals, institutions, and societies. | |
| ▲ | fluoridation a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >If people are using it presumably they're getting some value out of it which means that most objections to datacenters are NIMBYism and not some kind of principled stance. No, one does not follow from the other. I might campaign against the building of a road because I believe the funds could be better spent on something else. If the road is built, am I a hypocrite for using it? No. The road is already there. Whether I use it or not, the funds are already spent. I may as well use it. Something can be positive under a narrow lens, and a negative under a broader one. There's no hypocrisy in acknowledging both realities. >Datacenters are fine. Datacenters and AI are distinct things. Someone can be in favor of one and not the other, with no contradiction. | | |
| ▲ | SR2Z 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Someone can be in favor of one and not the other, with no contradiction Sure, great, but the two seem to be treated as one issue and opinions are rarely stated in clear and falsifiable terms. They stay vague because there really aren't that many good reasons to oppose them, and IMO sane discussion on the subject leads to "building these really doesn't change that much" or "AI slop is really not that different from any other kind of slop." > The road is already there. Whether I use it or not, the funds are already spent. I may as well use it. If you then hear about someone building a new road and you go "I hate roads and I resent these guys for building a new road" and then you go and use the new road too, I'm gonna be suspicious of your motivations because clearly you don't hate roads that much. If you said "I think we should build fewer roads because adding more lanes doesn't really work that well to reduce traffic" then that would be different; you wouldn't be a hypocrite for saying that. See my above statement. Opponents of AI and/or datacenters rarely seem to say what it is about them that they actually dislike. Yes, I suppose they could be thinking clearly on the topic and have internally consistent takes, but then why the hell can't they articulate complaints that make sense? | | |
| ▲ | fluoridation 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Sure, great, but the two seem to be treated as one issue I don't care. I'm responding on the topic of AI. I won't let you treat them as interchangeable just because you perceive them as treated that way. >If you then hear about someone building a new road and you go "I hate roads and I resent these guys for building a new road" and then you go and use the new road too, I'm gonna be suspicious of your motivations because clearly you don't hate roads that much. Cool, but you've specifically constructed a person that fits your narrative. What you said originally what the sheer number of users of AI means that some of them must be anti-AI. You went from a deduced existence of a broad kind of person to an asserted existence of a specific one, with no justification. I'm not sure your opponents are the only ones guilty of not thinking clearly. >Yes, I suppose they could be thinking clearly on the topic and have internally consistent takes, but then why the hell can't they articulate complaints that make sense? I don't know. Can't they? I don't even know who you're talking about because you're treating complaints about datacenters and about AI as equivalent. Myself, I don't think I've seen anyone be just anti-AI in the sense you said, of despising the existence and development of generative models, wholly and completely. Some people are concerned about the business practices of the AI industry; some resent the effect of AI on the hardware market; some are concerned about the labor market (even if they don't think they're in danger of being replaced); some look at it from the more physical aspect of it, as you've said the construction and operation of datacenters. If you treat these swaths of people as just one person, it's small wonder you'll think they flip-flop from one position to another. |
|
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | logicchains a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | >You can recognize the utility of something while acknowledging that, on the whole, it'd be better if it didn't exist. There's a word for that: hypocrisy. | | |
| ▲ | customguy a day ago | parent | next [-] | | That's when you say others shouldn't use it while you use it. I don't like the parts of the city that are full of concrete and (edit: lacking) trees. I still walk or drive through there instead of making a huge detour, I still use them because that's what's there, currently. I know processed food sucks, sometimes it's easiest to grab something that's quick to make or can be eaten instantly because the supermarket is full of them. And even assuming it means hypocrisy, so? You think you'd withstand examination? Face the arguments, instead of using some abstract fantasies about some average AI critic that doesn't exist as an excuse. At least they're only hypocritical like everyone else including you, instead of acting like a 3 yo, "yeah but you're stupid, so". | |
| ▲ | fluoridation a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | No. That's not what the word means. |
|
| |
| ▲ | palmotea a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I'm not even talking about at work, I'm saying that a large majority of Americans are using AI of their own free will in situations where it's not required but is genuinely useful. Where is your data to back up such an assertion? I'm not even sure how you could determine "of their own free will in situations where it's not required but is genuinely useful," except maybe in a yes/no survey question, which is suspect. It's also worth noting that AI is getting shoved down peoples throats. Want to do a Google Search? Congratulations, you're now using AI of your own "free will"! > The sheer number of people means that a lot of them must also say they're anti-AI, and my point is that whether or not they say they like it they're undeniably choosing to use it. Usually when people like you make points like that, they're trying to undermine the "anti" argument by implying hypocrisy. My point is "choice" can't actually reveal that, because the environment of that choice is too complex. The observation is a meaningless factoid. |
|
|
