@r1veRRR@feddit.org
member since 6 Jan 2026 11:27
comments
- on A touch of AI is all it takes to trigger backlash, as a promising new indie falls afoul of slop skeptics in c/technology@lemmy.world · 26 Aug 2026
-
on A touch of AI is all it takes to trigger backlash, as a promising new indie falls afoul of slop skeptics in c/technology@lemmy.world · 26 Aug 2026
To try to come up with an explanation that doesn’t pretend these peoples brain fell out of their heads:
Some people are crafters. For them the process and even the tools around that process are important, maybe even more important than the outcome. It makes sense that they would be wary of AI, to put it mildly.
Other people are builders. For them, all they want is to solve an issue, build a solution, create an art. The way they get there is an implementation detail they don’t care about. They don’t care whether it’s real oil, or digital oil, as long as the oil painting in there head becomes a real thing somehow. It’s understandable why they might at least try to use AI for art.
-
on A touch of AI is all it takes to trigger backlash, as a promising new indie falls afoul of slop skeptics in c/technology@lemmy.world · 26 Aug 2026
I’m sorry, but I’m certain that the average AI summary beats/matches what the average person gets from a normal search. You’re acting like people before AI didn’t just believe whatever the first or second link told them, for most cases.
If you’ve ever even read the summary of a study, you’re in the top 10% of “people that research online”.
-
on The Pollution Being Churned Out by AI Data Centers Is So Severe That It's Almost Incomprehensible in c/technology@lemmy.world · 17 Aug 2026
Same is true for meat. Meat is to nutrition what AI is to intelligence. An extremely wasteful, ultimately unnecessary version with better alternatives.
The main difference for all the complainers is of course that they already don’t use AI. Not using meat would, in contrast, require actual effort beyond moaning and bitching.
If your morals depend on whether it requires personal effort, you’re not moral, you’re a hypocrite.
-
on The Pollution Being Churned Out by AI Data Centers Is So Severe That It's Almost Incomprehensible in c/technology@lemmy.world · 17 Aug 2026
We aren’t, though, not even close. And we’ve also been holding back over the years. Trump even paid a german company to abandon an already approved offshore windpark.
Even still, I beg people to stop falling for the same sensationalist trick that makes every conservative foam at the mouth about immigrants. PUT ABSOLUTE NUMBERS INTO RELATION TO SOMETHING!! What is the estimated 34 million in 2030 in percent? What is the impact of non-veganism in the same time? What percentages are we looking at?
Our outrage and effort should be in relation to the negative impact of each problem. Animal AG has a gigantic impact in every sensible metric, and it’s far far far bigger than AI. Be honest, do you think even a fraction of the loudest complainers about AIs resource use are vegan?
Can we really believe people whose morality stops wherever they’d personally need to actually do more than bitch and moan?
-
on The Pollution Being Churned Out by AI Data Centers Is So Severe That It's Almost Incomprehensible in c/technology@lemmy.world · 17 Aug 2026
I’d love to see any kind of sources on this. From what I can tell animal agriculture emits roughly 20–30× more CO2e than all data centers combined.
Animal agriculture: The FAO’s most recent estimate puts livestock supply chains at roughly 6.2 Gt CO2e per year, about 12% of global greenhouse gas emissions Data centers (including AI): The IEA puts all data centers at about 0.5% of global CO2 emissions today (~180 Mt CO2), projected to reach 1–1.4% by 2030
-
on The Pollution Being Churned Out by AI Data Centers Is So Severe That It's Almost Incomprehensible in c/technology@lemmy.world · 17 Aug 2026
Well, sure, but when everyone loses their fucking minds about the tiniest thing, that even requires us to buy all the lies from billionaires about how much the build out will be, while having never done anything about the biggest thing they could personally change, it starts sounding mightily hypocritical.
It seems like the personal responsibility to boycott polluting and unnecessary industries is limited to whatever doesn’t require any personal effort from the person speaking.
Napkin math:
- 40% of americans are very or extremely concerned about AIs environmental impact
- To save 34 million tonnes of CO2e, you need about 5.2 million vegans from now until 2030
- So only 5% of ONLY the complainers would need to go vegan to make up for this “tremendous” impact
- That’s 2% of all americans
That’s the thing we’re even attacking random strangers online for. The thing that we pretend is going to bring about the end times. But sure, veganism is the extreme position…
By the way, what other resources are we saving?
- Water — about 8.8 trillion gallons (~33 billion m³)
- Land — around 1–1.5 million acres of forest/land
- Animals — roughly 8 billion animals including fish and shellfish
-
on Cloudflare says humans could become a "rounding error" as bots generate 1,000 times more internet traffic in c/technology@lemmy.world · 9 Aug 2026
The sad irony of efforts like that and stuff like Lemmy or Mastadon is that they HAVE to stay just a little too fiddly, too inaccessible, too rough. Otherwise, they become a victim of their own success. Suddenly, “normal” people show up and ruin everything. Scammers follow, bots follow, advertisers follow, etc. It’s like with piracy, where any page that’s known to “normal” people is very likely going to be taken down.
Do you genuinely believe this is true for even just 10% of gamers? 10% of people? I’m not saying I disagree, I just don’t believe any relevant amount of people give a damn about the purity of art for most things.
Most art the average person interacts with is mainly utilitarian. Marketing and porn is probably like a good 80% by mass. As long as the art does it’s job, I just don’t believe most people give a fucking damn.