> Didn't google just prove there is little to no environmental harm, INCLUDING if you account for training? No, they showed that the environmental impact of us

> Didn't google just prove there is little to no environmental harm, INCLUDING if you account for training? No, they showed that the environmental impact of using a smaller AI embedded on Google results uses less power to train and run than using something SOA. That's quite a different thing altogether. > I don't ask a lot of race-based questions to my LLMS I guess You don't need to ask explicit questions to receive answers where bias is implicitly stated. You've dismissed the argument out of hand without actually meeting it. > I won't deny it's an issue but to act like it's being ignored by the industry is a miss completely. The claim was that critics had been vocal about it, not that it had been ignored by the industry. > I also grew up being told that ANYTHING on the internet was for the public, and copyright never stopped me from saving images or pirating movies. Policing is always very patchy. You maybe broke the law and got away with it as an individual, that's common. The issue is that these huge businesses can do a level of copyright infringement, and do it on a for-profit basis, while smaller businesses would be eradicated for attempting the same thing, and the artists they're taking from would face similar issues if they attempted even a fraction of that level of plagiarism.