Less waste of resources is still waste of resources.

How much of the AI generated content is actually useful, how much useless, how much harmful?

guiriduro an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Some of it is useful, and from an environmental perspective, if it eliminates some other activity (e.g. team of workers driving to/from work and their office heating/cooling) then it can even be a net positive.

I would agree that there should be some tariffed token usage based on CO2, efficient datacentres pay little, polluting ones pay a lot - would help even the field and export good practice.

▲

km3r an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Except you don't actually ban it, you just move it to texas.

That content is coming either way.

And if you require them to over offset their load to the grid, it's literally fossil fuels burned over all.

	▲	croes 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Except they wouldn't move to Texas but would also build in Texas. So you don't get a less polluting datacenter but you get one less polluting and one more polluting datacenter. A Swedish datacenter doesn't simply replace one in Texas, it's an additional one.

▲

YetAnotherNick 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Datacenter wouldn't stop, and there would be some country or area which allows it. Unless they regulate the entire world, we should focus on lowering CO2 globally, and that means allowing datacenter in your neighour if your energy is better.