@BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
member since 10 Jun 2023 05:09
comments
- on All AI Data Centers Under Construction Could Emit as Much CO₂ as 24 Million Cars in c/technology@beehaw.org · 28 Aug 2026
-
on All AI Data Centers Under Construction Could Emit as Much CO₂ as 24 Million Cars in c/technology@beehaw.org · 27 Aug 2026
It’s not a disagreement when someone says something that is objectively and proveably false.
This is something that people need to figure out.
They said I was misleading, then they either just strait up either lied, or didn’t bother to confirm their assumption when trying to prove that. They were wrong.
You call me out for not being nice. What they did is not nice. Call them out for that.
-
on All AI Data Centers Under Construction Could Emit as Much CO₂ as 24 Million Cars in c/technology@beehaw.org · 27 Aug 2026
Are you saying that states can’t regulate this? They absolutely can.
-
on All AI Data Centers Under Construction Could Emit as Much CO₂ as 24 Million Cars in c/technology@beehaw.org · 27 Aug 2026
You say we like it’s everyone. It isn’t.
My province in Canada had the electricity provider cap how much gets allocated to new data centers per year at a sustainable number.
Regulation instead of outright bans are the correct path forward.
-
on All AI Data Centers Under Construction Could Emit as Much CO₂ as 24 Million Cars in c/technology@beehaw.org · 27 Aug 2026
You’re wrong. The average yearly co2 output for a car is somewhere between 4-5 tons. Which lines up with the numbers in the article. So no, it’s not actively running vehicles.
I am a fan of AI, that’s correct. That doesn’t change the fact that every single one of you chucklefucks don’t seem to understand numbers, or the scale of things in the real world.
You go on and on about how bad they are for the environment, while continuing to eat meat and drive your cars around. Both of which consume resources in a scale that makes AI look like a rounding error. Until I start hearing people protesting and actually doing something about those, I’m going to assume that your anti-AI stances are bullshit and a cover for hiding your fear that they will take over your job.
If that’s the real reason, just say it, then I will agree with you. Then we can discuss how we need to change society to deal with that problem, rather than banning AI.
-
on All AI Data Centers Under Construction Could Emit as Much CO₂ as 24 Million Cars in c/technology@beehaw.org · 26 Aug 2026
There are approximately 1.7 billion cars in the world right now.
That’s 1700 million for people who can’t do math.
-
on A touch of AI is all it takes to trigger backlash, as a promising new indie falls afoul of slop skeptics in c/gaming@beehaw.org · 25 Aug 2026
Context window not so much. He is pretty solid with the hallucinations though.
-
on A touch of AI is all it takes to trigger backlash, as a promising new indie falls afoul of slop skeptics in c/gaming@beehaw.org · 24 Aug 2026
Human use in jobs requires keeping a human alive, which is in and of itself terrible for the environment.
Some of them are really bad at it too, have you seen the work my 11 year old puts out? It’s garbage. He can’t even get 100% of his math questions correct, and don’t even get me started on how poor his spelling is. He’s had 11 years to get better and it still sucks. Do you know how many resources he’s consumed in that training period? What if he never gets good at it?
The entire argument AI being bad is based on an assumption that humans are somehow good. Objectively that is wrong. Only subjectively is there any argument for that.
-
on There's No Reason to Buy a New Phone Anymore in c/technology@beehaw.org · 19 Aug 2026
The prices of new electronics have skyrocketed, the used market always follows so you’re right to be worried.
-
on Top economist warns that the AI math doesn’t make sense: 'Profits are currently being funded by investors rather than earned from customers' in c/technology@beehaw.org · 12 Aug 2026
That makes sense, you’re clearly not smart enough to know a second language so you can test it out.
-
on Top economist warns that the AI math doesn’t make sense: 'Profits are currently being funded by investors rather than earned from customers' in c/technology@beehaw.org · 12 Aug 2026
Other than not blocking your entire phone line while you were on it, paying for hours per month of connectivity, having content take minutes to load, lacking in useful content, a thousand and one different logins with no safety systems attached, constant viruses, and no safe way to pay for things?
Nah, it was great.
-
on Top economist warns that the AI math doesn’t make sense: 'Profits are currently being funded by investors rather than earned from customers' in c/technology@beehaw.org · 11 Aug 2026
Maybe you wouldn’t, but I would. You clearly don’t remember how bad the internet was when it first became available to the public.
-
on Top economist warns that the AI math doesn’t make sense: 'Profits are currently being funded by investors rather than earned from customers' in c/technology@beehaw.org · 11 Aug 2026
Your emotions don’t override reality.
LLMs are excellent at translation as one significant beneficial use case.
-
on Top economist warns that the AI math doesn’t make sense: 'Profits are currently being funded by investors rather than earned from customers' in c/technology@beehaw.org · 10 Aug 2026
The underlying technology isn’t unprofitable, inference alone isn’t unprofitable. It’s the research and development of better models that’s unprofitable and unsustainable.
Investment IS gambling, some people will win, some will lose.
That’s pretty much how almost every new development happens. EVs were the same, primarily funded by subsidies and now they’re cost competitive or better in many situations even without them. Cellphone networks… also heavily funded by investors and some took hits from how it all played out. The dotcom bubble. Even as far back as the Railroad boom in the UK. This is a tale as old as time.
Except for Alberta, which totally tracks because it’s the Texas of Canada.