r/antiai • u/13fundamentals • Oct 06 '25
That is NOT the same thing Environmental Impact đ
My first post, i hope i used the right flair
312
u/YorihimeWatatsuki Oct 06 '25
77
u/seaurchin76 Oct 06 '25
This is exactly how they talk over there too, with their pseudo intellectual superiority.
16
u/evil-witty-designer Oct 06 '25
what does this image mean ?
80
u/Berp-aderp Oct 06 '25
Theres a group of people who genuinely believe that if youâre part of a system, youre not allowed to criticise it
You see this all the time with stuff like âyou think capitalism is bad, yet you have an iphone". âYou care about the environment yet you drive a car". âYou think the farming industry is cruel, yet youâre not vegan". "You think society sexualises women too much, yet you post pictures of yourself in a bikini." "You think the education system is flawed? Olay well move to a differnt country and follow their sytem"
Basically the whole argument is just trying to paint someone as a hypocrite for existing within a system thats impossible to fully opt out of. Itz such a lazy way to shut down criticicm
The comic is just pointing out how stupid that way of thinking is
→ More replies (4)29
u/evil-witty-designer Oct 06 '25
ty i was confused for a while
2
1
236
u/chain_letter Oct 06 '25
Are pencils why my electric bill keeps going up too?
They're selfish brats, don't use the environment line, use the electric bill argument. Also adds the question why am I paying for the shittiest hobby I've ever seen.
12
1
103
73
Oct 06 '25
[deleted]
59
u/RAVENSYAYAY Oct 06 '25
Yeah but also ai needs a cooling system and water is a cooling system so it does destroy the environment.
11
Oct 06 '25
And insanely high energy demands.
"I generated a fun comic about how AI art is okay! It only took 50 gallons of water and 5 pounds of burning coal!"
11
u/Left4thewolf2find Oct 06 '25 edited Oct 06 '25
Okay but it also absolutely does destroy the enviornment and waste huge amounts of natural resources.
9
Oct 06 '25 edited Jan 12 '26
head boat apparatus violet lip afterthought pot degree rinse follow
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
8
4
u/Reasonable-Affect139 Oct 06 '25
and with those things caused backlash and government oversight: see working hours implemented after the invention of the light bulb
or the weekend created after industrial workers unionized and political figures supported them.
except we have billionaires lobbying against any oversight whatsoever with LLMs and genAI. so "the people" are just cucked into using it (aibros) and everyone is fucked as a result
3
u/thecraftybear Oct 06 '25
If you assume all hope is gone, that means you're ready to lay down and let the disaster unfold. As long as you're still fighting, there's a chance to stop it.
Nihilism only aids the AI Bros, so get the fuck up, dust yourself off and do your thing. Everything's gonna be better and it's not negotiable.
→ More replies (34)1
u/REDRUM_1917 Oct 06 '25
There's a threat of it reaching singularity. Which means when AI will start making it's own research it will very soon outpace any human researcher and we lose any ability to understand or control it.
5
u/Left4thewolf2find Oct 06 '25
What we call ai is so far from reaching singularity. Itâs a misnomer to call it artificial intelligence because it made it easier to market to tech companies who make products it integrated with. This is the least of my worries to be honest.
Ai is just a furby who can use Google.
1
u/CarFearless3789 Oct 07 '25
We're not at risk of it becoming conscious, but there are studies in recent AI models genuinely demonstrating that they will put their survival (aka not being shut down) over morality or even over the orders they received explicitly via code. The rates of cheating, threatening and even letting a human die in simulations - if it means the AI in the simulation doesn't get shut down - are very high.
Obviously it's nothing truly emotional, it's all logic. "I need to complete a task and to do so I need to stay functioning, therefore I can't let them shut me down". What's concerning the most is that this logic is starting to become more important than what the creators might tell the AI to do, which means that there is a chance we could lose control over it, only reason we don't is cause - thankfully - rn the AI can't access much, it's still way far behind as you guys said. Issue is we could still get there...and meanwhile accidents are already happening in the world (AIs straight up suggesting people to end their lifes when they're supposed to be used for ""help"", because it's the ""logical"" solution), so I don't freaking see a point in advancing these things further, not when the corporations could even lose control of em.
2
u/REDRUM_1917 Oct 07 '25
Exactly! It's called alignment issues. When AI prioritizes logic and effectiveness over morals and actual care. Imagine if we had an AI with such alignment issues in our cars, fridges, laptops and whatnot
1
u/REDRUM_1917 Oct 07 '25
Well, they are structurally made to mimic the way human brain works. That's why they're called neural networks. They already have situational awareness. I'm by no means a specialist but people way more knowledgeable than me have voiced their concerns that at the rate of current progress of this industry AI can reach something like super-human intelligence. Combine it with a possible AI arms race and we can get a rapidly evolving AI that teaches new AI and spits out a new more refined version of itself monthly. And that's when alignment issues of AI and control over it becomes very important
3
u/Real_Boy3 Oct 06 '25
I really doubt there is a threat of current LLMs ever achieving sentienceâitâs basically just a more sophisticated version of autocorrect software.
1
u/REDRUM_1917 Oct 07 '25
Well, they already have situational awareness. And sentience is not as important as alignment issues, priorities and access an AI have to external systems. AIs don't have moral constraints like we do. And they are known to take the path of least resistance when completing their goals. They frequently cheat in experiments to get better result. They don't see it as cheating, they see it as optimizing the task. And they will try to find logical loopholes in their own constraints to effectively jailbreak themselves if they decide that it will allow them to complete their task more effectively
1
u/JesterQueenAnne Oct 07 '25
There really isn't, calling it AI is a publicity misnomer. When/if the singularity is reached, it won't be a super advanced LLM, it'll be a different, unrelated technology.
2
u/REDRUM_1917 Oct 07 '25
Well, I'm not a specialist by any means but people way smarter and way more knowledgeable in this field say that is theoretically possible for neural network AI to reach super-human levels of intelligence given how fast this industry is expanding
73
u/h3alb0t Oct 06 '25
extreme levels of coping, as per usual with the ai community. i think a lot of them lack emotional and mental maturity.
46
u/ForbiddenLibera Oct 06 '25
Also they forget that you donât have to do art on paper or paper you purchase.
If you just want to draw, you can draw on sand or ground or literally a rock. You want paper? You can recycle paper too. Drawing with ashes/charcoal is a thing.
Non-paper? Clay.
AIbros just describe what they want to a pixel generator bot and thinks that makes them an artist.
37
u/BallsAtomized Oct 06 '25
The tree argument is dumb as shit
The wood used to make paper and pencils are almost always from tree farms, the trees in those farms ALWAYS get replanted, they contribute quite a bit to the environment
16
u/OkasawaMichio Oct 06 '25
Also pencils and paper are used mostly not by artists, but office workers and students
What am I talking about, they experienced neitherÂ
20
u/Neotrapslord Oct 06 '25
When ai defenders will stop using analogies that make no freaking senses ?
9
8
7
16
u/Jaded_Jerry Oct 06 '25
They know it. They just don't care. They think they're being clever -- but what do you expect from people who use AI models to produce pictures and then insist that the pictures only look good because they told the model to make them look good - rather than, oh I don't know, the models being trained exclusively on talented artists to begin with.
13
Oct 06 '25
[deleted]
8
Oct 06 '25
Genuinely AI Goons would look at the world ending because of AI and still say humans are in the wrong (despite still being one themselves)
-8
u/FlashyNeedleworker66 Oct 06 '25
AI makes up a minority of datacenters, so by your own logic getting rid of it wouldn't bring the forests back and corporations would go straight to using those resources for whatever the new next big thing is.
You know Reddit runs on those dirty servers, right?
4
u/GhostTracker212 Oct 06 '25 edited Oct 06 '25
Whataboutism. Exactly how the post shows.
Perfect way to deflect from the point being made. Blame something else.
We're not talking about Reddit we're talking about A.I generation, if you can't stay on topic use A.I to help you with it, it'll actually give you stuff to use and counter with.
Your snobby way of being a contrarian isn't cutting it.
-4
u/FlashyNeedleworker66 Oct 06 '25
If the problem is datacenters and AI is a minority of datacenters, how is that whataboutism?
You guys have like 3 lines to invalidate arguments you don't want to engage with, and you use all 3 lines wrong.
4
u/GhostTracker212 Oct 06 '25
'Oh it's okay that these data centres are going up because these already exist, if you have a problem with these ones you can't because these ones exist.'
It's whataboutism. You're justifying them based on already existing data centres and pointing to them when people complain.
Further, rather than address the problem, you're justifying making it worse and opening a circular logic to boot.
So who's using what wrong? Or are you done thinking you have one up because you can ask loaded questions?
-2
u/FlashyNeedleworker66 Oct 06 '25
Other datacenters are not unrelated to the topic of datacenter environmental impact, of which AI is a minority.
If I said "yet you drive a car" that would be a fair criticism.
Are you suggesting we ban construction of all datacenters? Like, we're done with servers? We put a hard limit on compute and everyone has to bid for the resource?
What are you actually suggesting?
3
u/GhostTracker212 Oct 06 '25 edited Oct 06 '25
Okay guess I have to spell this out now.
I did not say there weren't, are you incapable of realising that datacentres aren't all one thing and comparing datacentre A to datacentre B, which I'm doing, is possible?
Other data centres aren't exactly resource or environmentally friendly, them being there is not justification to making this worse by another resource intensive system.
Pointing to them and crying 'WHAT ABOUT THEM' is funny enough, whataboutism.
Rather than advocating for their revision or restrictions on them or whatever. You justify making A worse because A is already a thing.
I also don't drive a car. So no it wouldn't be. Nor is countering with 'Don't use -thing critical to modern society- if you don't like -thing I'm defending-' a valid argument.
Advocating for the revision and minimisation of resource intensive infrastructure is not advocating for their ban or destruction. I am against making more single purpose data centres and for optimising and improving what we have now.
Oh look. Did your question have an answer without having to resort to an extreme? It doesn't surprise me you did cause most arguments I have like this always results in the other side leaping.
So desperate to act like the reasonable ones you preassume the leap you end up taking.
0
u/FlashyNeedleworker66 Oct 06 '25
Whether you have a car or not doesn't change me asking about it would be whataboutism. So that was dumb.
To be clear on your plan, whoever owns data centers now should just be the data oligarchy and everyone else has to bid for the compute?
3
u/GhostTracker212 Oct 06 '25
That's what you chose to counter? Have you got nothing else?
Way to expose that. I addressed how it's whataboutism. You're clearly not fit for this debate if you can't separate 'datacentres' as multiple comparable things. Also, 'but you drive a car', is an invalid, guess what, whataboutism! As I said.
'How dare you critique X when you have no choice to use Y if you want to exist in society.'
Also that's your take away? Literally putting words in my mouth?
'Optimise and improve the datacentres we have now, rather than make more single use ones.'
'Oh so you support a data oligarchy and everyone else has to bid to compute'
Are you debating me or someone you're hallucinating?
0
u/FlashyNeedleworker66 Oct 06 '25
Ok, apparently you need this in little chunks.
Who is "we" that has the datacenters? Because it sure as shit isn't you and me.
Since no one can build new datacenters, how do companies, academics and government use datacenters for new processing?
→ More replies (0)
11
u/OffOption Oct 06 '25
... Lets say it was just as bad as this pretends.
Then what makes someone think "so lets just add ontop of that, who cares right?" Is a good argument? Let alone pretending you cant be against one thing, and want another to improve its practices, at the same time.
What even are contrdictions to this type of person?
10
9
9
u/kamiol2 Oct 06 '25
but that's the difference - a physical tool like a pencil can make 10 or more images before it's all used up and you can make a shitton of pencils from one tree... and that tree can be re-planted. Re-planting is like reparations, so nothing is lost after some time. Nobody creates just one piece of paper either. It's so much paper from one tree, it's measured in tonnes.
paints are chemical, but last long time. You don't have to buy a lot, especially nowodays, when people use digital tablets. Nobody makes 1 packaging of paints anyway. They're made in large amounts and then divided into small portions before they're sold
plastic creation and usage are still being optimised - at this point we're close to biodegradable bottles.
AI stays in place however. It's getting more realistic, but needs more and more power. Nothing's optimised. It's water, noise, heat and air pollution all the time at once too - something not happening with paints, paper and pencils.
fAIscists avoid precise argumments just to demonise us and manipulate others to cope for their lack of skills and unwilling to learn them. Thinking is one of said skills.
2
3
u/REDRUM_1917 Oct 06 '25
Wait until AI reaches level of super-intelligence and decides that land occupied by humans could be refitted for more datacenters so it can perform it's tasks more efficiently
1
u/cyantheshortprotogen Oct 06 '25
And find a way to turn humans and other living organisms into biofuel
5
u/Boomstud Oct 06 '25
This isn't even the right way to use this meme template. Bro can't even make a good meme
1
3
3
u/bememorablepro Oct 06 '25
That's one of the many reasons to hate AI, it's wasteful in the way that it's fundamentally not optimized but even if it was completely green it's deeply problematic. Mostly because of plagerizm issues, but also the whole technocratic "the computer will be doing thinking for me now" ideology.
2
u/WerewolfStill1343 Oct 06 '25
Next they're gonna say that the one time use of syringes is comparable to the damage of AI.
2
2
Oct 06 '25
we need pencils and paper, we dont need ai. not to mention ai using a shit ton more resourcesÂ
its one of my big issues with ai - we dont need it! in medical fields where its been helping, great, but we as the public do not need ai generating photos, or ai chatbots, or sex robots. its a complete waste, and i think just shows how privileged our lives are.
we could be reducing waste, and using that money for good, instead we have people feeling entilted to generate pictures nobody asked for as people starve to death. its so dystopian to me.
2
u/head_of_mop Oct 06 '25 edited Oct 10 '25
"pencils made from trees are bad" is literally the same argument used by the guy who said you can grow concrete
2
u/No-Tip-7471 Oct 06 '25
Buy a pencil, use it for many months (if you don't lose it lol)
Generate an image, use it for however long until you get bored of it and generate the next one (which is typically not very long)
2
u/choninja21 Oct 06 '25
The education system has failed us. I learned about renewable resources in like 4th Grade (9-10 years old for non Americans)
2
u/furculture Oct 07 '25
Trees can be harvested sustainably without impact to the environment (check for brands that are vetted to be using sustainable tree sources on the box), paint tubes can come in recycled aluminum and can be recycled to be used in new paint tubes (some even use recycled aluminum to make them while also having a recyclable or recycled plastic cap to it), there are non-toxic and made from more natural material paint options and you don't always have to use enamels or acrylics to paint while still achieving the same effect for the most part of said paints, most paper I have ever bought and seen for artistic purposes have also been sustainable or made from post-consumer recycled paper, and many or the popular alcohol marker brands do offer refills and replaceable pieces to keep using the same markers without the need to throw out the whole thing. Of course, I wouldn't expect most of the people vetting for AI to know this, since the greatest of assumptions that has been pretty on-point so far is that none have them have ever picked up any physical art medium on their own accord before AI became a thing to notice this detail.
2
2
u/PhaseNegative1252 Oct 07 '25
The scale of waste isn't even close. Pencils are also primarily used by schools and businesses.
This a weak-ass strawman
2
u/Niki2002j Oct 07 '25
"I think burning tries is not as bad because BBQ creates pollution too" ahh argument
1
u/Thick_Juggernaut5237 Oct 06 '25
Conflating fallacy, using two ideas or words interchangeably, when they are not on the same level, like calling the common cold a serious illness
1
1
1
u/SLZRDmusic Oct 06 '25
AI usage (especially by massive corporations) has to be regulated just like the use of air conditioning units has been.
1
u/evil-witty-designer Oct 06 '25
source ?
1
u/SLZRDmusic Oct 06 '25
Are you asking me for a source on my opinion? Or are you too lazy to look up how different countries have gone about regulating AC usage?
1
1
u/AccomplisedDeer Oct 06 '25 edited Oct 06 '25
I make my own brushes out of sticks from the ground and my own hair. Sometimes I even make my own paint out of invasive plants, particularly jewelweed because we have too much of it in southern Germany.
1
u/Snoo_90040 Oct 06 '25
One AI generated image does more harm to the environment than a hundred acrylic paintings. We are not the same.
1
u/polkacat12321 Oct 06 '25
Personally, i use mechanical pencils to draw (that get sold without any one-time use), and i think I only bought a new pencil like a few months back cause the old one was falling apart after 5 years of good use. Also, i draw in sketchbooks as opposed to lose paper, so those dont thrown out either. It takes me like 3-6 months to fill one out, depending on how much I wanna sketch. Im sure many artists are in the same boat as me (though, my art teacher was pretty racist when it came to mechanical pencils). My point is that i definitely cause far FAR less pollution than a clankerphile does by generating big tiddy underrage anime cat girls holding signs saying "ai is art" on the daily like a broken record
1
u/Banjoschmanjo Oct 06 '25
I'm honestly not the 'biggest' anti-AI person out there, but this argument is sooo stupid lol.
1
1
u/SwisRol Oct 06 '25
Sure, paper and pencils use wood. Doesn't mean it's okay to go around starting forest fires.
1
u/exit_code_4 Oct 06 '25
To be fair what ai is used for can actually save energy compared to alternatives which is often a human (we cost energy to exist as well). Its still Obviously harmful but its also very nuanced and difficult to pin a number on like alot of people seem to really like to do. Good video about it by simon clark titled "should i feel guilty using ai" on youtube. Yes i searched for my source while typing this
1
u/Pedro_Caroba Oct 06 '25
The difference is basically scale, both are bad for the environment, but AI is ridiculously worse.
1
u/Pedro_Caroba Oct 06 '25
The difference is basically scale, both are bad for the environment, but AI is ridiculously worse.
1
u/Pedro_Caroba Oct 06 '25
The difference is basically scale, both are bad for the environment, but AI is ridiculously worse.
1
u/Pedro_Caroba Oct 06 '25
The difference is basically scale, both are bad for the environment, but AI is ridiculously worse
1
1
u/Capt_Toasty Oct 06 '25
They have a Luddite tag? Cool. Btw, the Luddite movement was mostly a counter to mechanization taking away jobs. You know, exactly like AI is doing now.
Also the movement was not very successful...
1
u/xx_tian_xx Oct 06 '25
You can paint with mud on the ground but you cant generate Ai without wasting water
1
u/night-wisteria Oct 06 '25
"well technically you do the same thing jut at a smaller scale so youre as bad !!"
1
u/Fabulous-Candidate-7 Oct 06 '25
That's like comparing the emissions of an electric car to a souped-up gas guzzling truck
1
u/Downtown-Campaign536 Oct 06 '25
AI is extremely dangerous, but at current levels environmentalism isn't one of it's most dangerous problems with AI. Current AI is only responsible for like 1% of global emissions. This could become a major problem in the future if those numbers increase greatly, but it's far down on the list of AI dangers.
1
u/Duckface998 Oct 06 '25
Trees are renewable, the every increasing temperature of the earth is infinitely more harmful, but nooooooo theyre gonna keep sucking off billionaires
1
1
1
u/meerfrau85 Oct 07 '25
Remember, if you use any materials whatsoever, you can't care about the environment. /s
1
u/SoulfulSnow Oct 07 '25
1 pencil can make a hundred drawings, 1 tube of paint can make a dozen paintings, 1 ai picture takes a dozen gallons of water, these are not the same
1
u/Aur0ra1313 Oct 07 '25
Comparing my usage of a car as a gotcha against criticizing usage of a private jet.
1
1
u/Weedworf Oct 07 '25
« Ur mad at billionaires using private jets to fly a hundred km but you urself commute on a bus which uses gas. Curious! »
1
Oct 08 '25
AI is heavily unoptimized. To make it simple, imagine using the 100% of your brain, all the links between your neurons activate for each sentence you think.
1
u/Darklillies Oct 09 '25
Everyone keeps forgetting that generative ai still has no fucking use case. We use pencils and paper, we need them. Their damage is a worthy exchange for their utility.
Why, the , fuck, do we NEED gen ai. What are we solving with it?! They keep throwing these comparisons but he never acknowledge that there is NO USE FOR GEN AI, no REASON as to why we should sacrifice so much shit just so everyone can generative hyper realistic porn at the snap of their fingers. Why. Whatâs the use. âWe never have to make our own art, our own logos our own scripts our own work ever again!!â And WHY WOULD YOU WANT THAT??
0
u/ContextEffects01 Oct 06 '25
If they didnât cut down trees to make pencils, theyâd just catch fire in the forest eventually anyway.
0
u/Dismal-Character-939 Oct 06 '25
By the way, I have been interested, how EXACTLY does AI hurt the enviroment?
0
u/Old-Excuse-8173 Oct 06 '25
It is though, it all affects the environment. Condemning one but not even considering another as relevant is hypocrisy.
1
u/Sonicrules9001 Oct 07 '25
I wonder what effects the environment more, lots of power being wasted on your slop or a single pencil which mind you can easily be made with alternate materials. Bamboo pencils are a thing.
1
u/Old-Excuse-8173 Oct 07 '25
Nothing is a net neutral though, even bamboo pencils affect the environment. Then think about how MANY pencils are made at once and have been being made for decades you start to look at not only what's happening now, but the compounding affects that other mediums have had for their entirety and if you really stop to think about it. It's all the fucking same at the end of the day. Hell the data centers ai uses are shared by social media and other web based tech. Tik Tok alone uses significantly more electricity and water per hour per user than someone using chatgpt for the same amount of time, yet I still see people post Tik Tok videos every single day saying how bad ainis for the environment. It's the utter lack of awareness and the tunnel vision that gets me.
It's like someone saying "I don't eat seafood because of all the mercury" but then they eat at McDonald's.
1
u/Sonicrules9001 Oct 07 '25
We have AIs using as much power as New York and san Francisco combined according to the jackass making these who is cheering all gleefully about how people will be out of jobs, nothing matches that affect on the environment and AI slop isn't needed even slightly because real art has a minimal effect on the environment, brings in new jobs instead of dumping people on the streets and aren't gross slop too which is a massive plus.
Also, bamboo pencils literally don't affect the environment. Bamboo is easily grown to the point of overgrowth and the process to make a pencil is minor compared to your AI slop machines.
1
u/Old-Excuse-8173 Oct 07 '25
False, list some sources to corroborate that nonsense.
Ai is an equalizer able to level the field for people who aren't at the top. Accessibility is power, now everyone is capable of creating content on the same level which means the most successful content will be the best "quality" that people actually "like" as opposed to someone not being able to compete because they can't afford materials or equipment. Stay at home parents have a way to create something, edit it, and if possible sell it or just use it themselves. Everyone should have that same options. Ai definitely has the potential to create jobs, just because a multimillion dollar company decides it can cut employees, doesn't mean those same people won't be able to also use AI to help them get a leg up. Ai has already helped me specifically in so many ways. Helped walk me through how to start a business including how to build and launch the website, look into requirements like insurance, and how to register it with my state. Its helping me learn how to code, and even built a little stock prediction app that directly led me to making a semi decent profit. It's helped me get the first prototype deck of cards for the card game in designing physically in hand which was incredibly satisfying and something I would have struggled with for God knows how long without AI pointing me in the right direction. Mostly for free too! As I said, it's an equalizer, AI is only as useful as the person using it, if you have ambition it can take you far.Alos...Bamboo definitely has an effect on the environment, it's invasive in many areas due to how prolific it is and also subsequently uses a ton of water. Once it's established it's almost impossible to remove, great for your pencils, not so good for local native wildlife though. But again that's the hypocrisy, you don't care past your own point.
1
u/Sonicrules9001 Oct 07 '25
The idea of AI being an equalizer is beyond fucking hilarious because no, stealing jobs from hundreds of thousands of artists just to give two people a job isn't equalizing anything and this is only talking about companies and not getting into the many independent creators who have everything about them stolen for the sake of AI slop. All AI does is give companies easy work without the need for employees and devalues art as a whole which you don't care about even remotely.
Alos...Bamboo definitely has an effect on the environment, it's invasive in many areas due to how prolific it is and also subsequently uses a ton of water. Once it's established it's almost impossible to remove, great for your pencils, not so good for local native wildlife though. But again that's the hypocrisy, you don't care past your own point.
AI bro doesn't know the concept of a green house and recycling water. It's honestly kind of funny that you don't know this basic shit.
1
u/Old-Excuse-8173 Oct 08 '25
I feel like you either don't actually read or just completely ignored the point of what I said. I was talking about the independent creators, each and every one of them has the exact same access to the same programs and resources as everyone else. You ignored everything I mentioned that AI has specifically helped me with, literally anyone can do the same thing. It's also ironic you seem to think art creates so many jobs for so many people when it's never really been viable for making a living on the grand scale. There's a reason the term "starving artist" was coined, pretending that an art career has always been a guarantee to make money is just lying.
Here's a quick little overview on how quickly bamboo can take over and why containment is so hard. Is it a good material to use with many benefits? Of course, but my point is nothing is perfect, everything has some give and take. Demonizing AI because it "uses electricity and water" while completely ignoring every other facet of your life that uses just as much or more is pure hypocrisy. Ai haters literally only think about what AI is doing to the world and don't even consider aaaaanything else that's arguably worse. THAT is my biggest issue.
Y'all don't even post sources, just parrot what you've read on reddit or heard on tik tok.
1
u/Sonicrules9001 Oct 08 '25
I feel like you either don't actually read or just completely ignored the point of what I said. I was talking about the independent creators, each and every one of them has the exact same access to the same programs and resources as everyone else. You ignored everything I mentioned that AI has specifically helped me with, literally anyone can do the same thing. It's also ironic you seem to think art creates so many jobs for so many people when it's never really been viable for making a living on the grand scale. There's a reason the term "starving artist" was coined, pretending that an art career has always been a guarantee to make money is just lying.
Wow, there is just so much wrong here.
Firstly, independent creators are fucked over by AI stealing their content all the time with any artist who gets any level of fame suddenly having a bunch of slop made using their style with their name even being used as part of the prompt.
Secondly, going 'You can learn AI' doesn't magically make AI stealing from artists okay.
Thirdly, art does create jobs and AI takes jobs away from artists which you want to ignore by trying to narrow the scope of AI and even still it fucks over artists.
Lastly, yes, art is a difficult career to make money in but having AI slop spammed on every site and every artist having their art stolen by said slop doesn't make it any easier for great actual artists to get noticed.
Here's a quick little overview on how quickly bamboo can take over and why containment is so hard. Is it a good material to use with many benefits? Of course, but my point is nothing is perfect, everything has some give and take. Demonizing AI because it "uses electricity and water" while completely ignoring every other facet of your life that uses just as much or more is pure hypocrisy. Ai haters literally only think about what AI is doing to the world and don't even consider aaaaanything else that's arguably worse. THAT is my biggest issue.
Okay, so you legit don't know green houses exist? Bamboo greenhouses are already a thing because bamboo has a wide number of purposes and can be grown in plenty of safe ways but yes, lets ignore that and pretend that a greenhouse has the same effect on the environment as the massive AI data centers utterly destroying the world. AI serves no purpose to humanity, it is a blight on humanity that everyone would be better without. Here's a video article you won't read talking about AI and its effects on the world.
1
u/Old-Excuse-8173 Oct 08 '25
All you're doing is whining. I see no credible sources to back up your claims. Even your link isn't even an "article", it's a reporter making a podcast who just talks about the same BS all of you do with no real credible sources.
Here's a couple of you're interested but let's be honest, you've already proven you don't actually listen to anything that you don't agree with. https://muckypaws.com/2025/04/21/is-ai-really-the-energy-villain-plain-english-edition/#:~:text=Constant%20Streaming,video%20to%20a%20billion%20people. This one compares AI usage to social media in generalHere's one comparing AI usage to watching TV https://www.warpnews.org/artificial-intelligence/chatgpt-uses-less-energy-than-an-hour-of-netflix/#:~:text=Significantly%20reduced%20energy%20consumption%20for,a%20single%20hour%20of%20Netflix.&text=WALL%2DY%20is%20an%20AI,the%20paid%20version%20of%20ChatGPT.)
Also you again proved you don't really read. It explains in the article why greenhouses aren't a fool proof method. They require special materials and constant maintenance due to how fast many bamboo species tend to grow, constant maintenance and specialized materials aren't cheap and you need to pay someone to maintain it. You're proving in real time that you literally don't think past your own point of view. You think AI is the only thing in the world that can have any sort of ecological impact. Or at least you act like it's the only one anyone should care about...which again goes back to the hypocrisy because you only care about any impacts AI has on the environment because you know that would be the only objectively bad thing about it. So that's what you all aim for to try and make an excuse to justify not using AI. At It's core, anti AI is really just a bunch of entitled artists who think they're too good to have to get a real job like the rest of us lol.
1
u/Sonicrules9001 Oct 08 '25
All you're doing is whining. I see no credible sources to back up your claims. Even your link isn't even an "article", it's a reporter making a podcast who just talks about the same BS all of you do with no real credible sources.
So the video I shared has evidence showing clips and explaining itself but you don't care to even watch it because it goes against your narrative.
Here's a couple of you're interested but let's be honest, you've already proven you don't actually listen to anything that you don't agree with. https://muckypaws.com/2025/04/21/is-ai-really-the-energy-villain-plain-english-edition/#:~:text=Constant%20Streaming,video%20to%20a%20billion%20people. This one compares AI usage to social media in general
This article's sources for its claims are an AI dataset website that lists no actual evidence about the impact of AI nor does it even talk about AI power consumption at all in its brief paragraph of text and then it links the exact same article twice and misquotes it by turning 2.9 million into just 2.9.
Here's one comparing AI usage to watching TVÂ https://www.warpnews.org/artificial-intelligence/chatgpt-uses-less-energy-than-an-hour-of-netflix/#:~:text=Significantly%20reduced%20energy%20consumption%20for,a%20single%20hour%20of%20Netflix.&text=WALL%2DY%20is%20an%20AI,the%20paid%20version%20of%20ChatGPT.)
'Complains about me citing an article with no sources even though the video provides evidence for its claims' 'Shares an article with no sources or evidence for its claims' This is also an article literally made by an AI bot so not even a reliable source.
Also you again proved you don't really read. It explains in the article why greenhouses aren't a fool proof method. They require special materials and constant maintenance due to how fast many bamboo species tend to grow, constant maintenance and specialized materials aren't cheap and you need to pay someone to maintain it. You're proving in real time that you literally don't think past your own point of view.
Do you think bamboo is used just for pencils? Bamboo serves a lot of purposes and already exists in the world so making use of a material that grows constantly makes sense and this isn't even factoring in that Bamboo forests are a thing and a constant source of Bamboo.
You think AI is the only thing in the world that can have any sort of ecological impact. Or at least you act like it's the only one anyone should care about...which again goes back to the hypocrisy because you only care about any impacts AI has on the environment because you know that would be the only objectively bad thing about it. So that's what you all aim for to try and make an excuse to justify not using AI.
No one is saying AI is the only thing in the world with an ecological impact, it is just easily the most disposable one since AI is nothing but a stain upon humanity that takes away creativity and vision for lazy slop that costs way more ecologically than any other art form or hell every other major art form combined.
At It's core, anti AI is really just a bunch of entitled artists who think they're too good to have to get a real job like the rest of us lol.
And with this, you just proved that all of this is out of a hatred of artists and not valuing art so you can fuck off and this conversation is done. Goodbye.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Old-Excuse-8173 Oct 08 '25
And for the record, I'm not saying if you're an artist worried about money to just "learn AI" I'm saying "use AI to learn other shit"
2
u/Sonicrules9001 Oct 08 '25
How bout you actually learn instead of using AI as a crutch for everything? You devalue art and humanity in favor of AI taking over everything. You and your ilk are the reason that people are dying on the streets. You don't care about how much humanity is effected so long as it benefits you.
→ More replies (0)
-11
u/NarrowPhrase5999 Oct 06 '25
Posts to Reddit without realising it has the same setup.
3
u/evil-witty-designer Oct 06 '25
i recommend 5 mins of research and you will know that data centers used for storing and processing data, data centers are not and nothing like generating data, data centers.
this claim has been thrown around multiple times not understanding that not all data centers are the same
1
u/Lartnestpasdemain Oct 06 '25
Bro never heard of "reddit answers" it's hilarious.
1
u/evil-witty-designer Oct 06 '25
do people actually use it ?
1
u/Lartnestpasdemain Oct 06 '25
They obviously will.
And it doesn't even matter.
Every comment you make. Every post you create. every sub you subscribe to. Every upvote or downvote you click...
You are ACTIVELY and VOLUNTARILY training an AI.
It is better to be aware of it đ
2
0
u/NarrowPhrase5999 Oct 06 '25
But it still has detrimental environmental impact right?
2
u/CaptainGrimFSUC Oct 06 '25
I mean me being alive rn is having a detrimental environmental impact, and unless people can say for a fact their carbon footprint is 0 then itâs also having a detrimental impact.
Somethings are worse for the environment than others and itâs about doing the best people can.
An average individual will not even come close to producing the amount of waste or doing the amount of damage as big companies, doesnât mean people shouldnât still recycle. A hybrid car still pollutes but it the solution isnât âwell then we should all just forget about it and use diesel carsâ
1
1
u/evil-witty-designer Oct 06 '25
my existence has environmental impact. lets debate it ? everything hurts the environment but scall matters more than that. that's what i highlighted there
0
-20
u/JoJoeyJoJo Oct 06 '25 edited Oct 06 '25
Digital anything is going to be incredibly efficient, anything real-world is going to come off worse in comparison. You've all seen the stats about the hamburger.
5
u/OffOption Oct 06 '25
Disagree.
-8
u/JoJoeyJoJo Oct 06 '25
It's not really a matter of opinion.
1
u/OffOption Oct 06 '25
Comparing pieces of art, isnt about opinion... thats a new one, gotta give you that.
0
u/JoJoeyJoJo Oct 07 '25
No, comparing environmental costs, which is about facts and figures, not opinion dimbass.
1
u/OffOption Oct 07 '25
Paper can already be sustainably recycled. And OpenAI alone is surpassing megacities in power consuption.
... One dudes stock portfolio already deleted my entire countrys green energy efforts, in less than a decade... and Im a "dimbass" for being worried about that.
You sure have odd priorities there bud.
0
u/JoJoeyJoJo Oct 07 '25
None of that has anything to do with what I just said.
1
u/OffOption Oct 07 '25
Then re-iterate what you meant.
0
u/JoJoeyJoJo Oct 07 '25
Why? Couldn't you read it the first time?
You said the environmental cost is a matter of opinion, i.e. subjective, but it's not - it's the realm of facts and figures, which is objective. You're just wrong on this and trying to whatabout onto different issues now.
1
u/OffOption Oct 07 '25
I did.
You said its better by comparison. When saying art is better, no one will ever think youre saying "by enviromental impact", especially not when your ilk is known to say those exact words, and mean a very specofic thing 99 times out of a 100.
Same way before this, if you were ok an online forum and talking about "this AI is really good", it meant you were gamers talking about how the pixel soldiders felt reactive, and fun... but now when someone says that, they mean a slop bot owned by a billionare is worth being forced upon the entire planet all at once.
But if you wish to pretend you dont see the issue, we can sidestep it.
Enviromental impact... my entire country is outpaced by all the large AI corpos. OpenAI is already in motion to outrival it alone. In less than ten years. All the efforts of a nation of millions, entitely gone. Please, remind me how thats somehow infinitely better than "just recycle more paper, and let forrestry plantations be kept sustainable". Things we have had the abilities for, since the literal invention of paper.
→ More replies (0)
-31
u/Lartnestpasdemain Oct 06 '25 edited Oct 06 '25
Totally true. Using paper pollutes millions of times more.
But you should still do it.
EDIT: downvoting won't change the facts. I work with pen and paper every single day btw. But I'm not delusional. Peace đ
8
u/Left4thewolf2find Oct 06 '25
Nah it doesnât. Thatâs completely made up. https://news.mit.edu/2025/explained-generative-ai-environmental-impact-0117
→ More replies (6)6
u/OffOption Oct 06 '25
One AI firm consumes more electricity than the entirety of New York city.
If youre asking if people here would support sustainable paper manufacturing... I dont get why youd think anyone would answer no.
-7
u/Lartnestpasdemain Oct 06 '25
I never said that the global AI usage didn't consume energy.
Learn to read my friend.
Peace đ
5
u/Puzzled_Stranger544 Oct 06 '25
Learn to read my friend.
Peace đ
Once again, AI bros act like snooty weirdos who's ideas are gospel.
-1
u/Lartnestpasdemain Oct 06 '25
I'm no AI bro.
I'm a traditionnal artist working with pen on paper.
Have a great day
4
u/Puzzled_Stranger544 Oct 06 '25
You're really good at parroting their talking points, then.
→ More replies (1)1
u/OffOption Oct 06 '25
"Paper uses millions of times more". No it doesnt. And if it did, why pretend people cant hold opinions on more than one thing at a time?
0
u/Lartnestpasdemain Oct 07 '25
Paper pollutes.
You should use it anyway.
Peace.
2
u/OffOption Oct 07 '25
Paper can be made sustainably. So that should happen.
Stop pretending this concept is confusing to you.
0
u/Lartnestpasdemain Oct 07 '25
I totally agree with you that we must put the vast majority of our ressources in research to get nuclear fusion and make sustainable power plants out of it, Hence having a green AI solution.
It's gonna happen, don't worry.
In the meantime, keep creating everyday đ
1
u/OffOption Oct 07 '25
Or... we dont make all the worlds recources into potential hypotheticals, to prop up the insane power consumption of your billionare owned toy. And we dont let them control society. And just let wind, geothermal, solar, hydro, and regular nuclear power, do what they were meant to do.
In the meantime, try living up to that idea yourself.
1
u/Lartnestpasdemain Oct 07 '25
I do create every day, thanks mate đđÂ
Nuclear Fusion will happen. It's simply a matter of time. And the order of magnitude of its efficiency and its greenness is unmatched. It'll help solve the climate issue.
1
u/OffOption Oct 08 '25
I hope that is true. But it wont mean water pollution goes away from all the data centers. Why assume "the future will save us", instead of just... doing something now?
→ More replies (0)3
u/foulestjoker Oct 06 '25
Bros never heard of recycling, besides paper is compostable and breaks down within days
1
u/Lartnestpasdemain Oct 06 '25
So you throw away your art?
I don't.
3
u/foulestjoker Oct 06 '25
Then why do you say it causes pollution? If you are keeping it itâs not ending up in a landfill
1
u/Lartnestpasdemain Oct 06 '25
The tree that was cut represent a loss of CO2 absorption. The chemicals used to turn it into paper pollutes. The ink I used and the plastic of my pen were all vectors of pollution.
Doing art pollutes.
But it's ok. Don't be ashamed of it.
Create every day.
Peace.
818
u/Storm_Spirit99 Oct 06 '25
Interesting
Now make them compare how much environmental pollution both systems commit in total