3 ms·

What does the end user do with the AI chat? It sounds like they can just use it to do searches of client information… which the existing site would already do.

venturecruelty 9mo ago
But not without using a thousand gallons of water and propping up Nvidia shares.
- sgt 9mo ago
  And there's still a lot of water left. We're just getting started, boys!
- Tiberium 9mo ago
  I get that the water stereotype is funny, but it gets tiring after a while (because it's not actually true).
  - only-one1701 9mo ago
    For what it’s worth: yes, it’s not technically true, but the reason it’s sticking around is because it conveys a deeply felt (and actually true) sentiment that many many people have: the output of generative AI isn’t worth the input.
    - hombre_fatal 9mo ago
      Well, it more demonstrates that people will quickly latch on to convenient lies that support what they want to be true, yet impede real discussion of the trade offs if they can’t even get the basic facts right. It’s not a good thing.
      - only-one1701 9mo ago
        I'm not saying it's "good", I'm just saying that it's worth a qualitative consideration of what it _means_ that this incorrect statement is so persistent beyond "not true, STFU"
    - simonw 9mo ago
      Urgh, I know that it's a solid explanation but I hate the "it may not be true but it captures a truth that people feel" argument so much! See also "instagram is spying on you through your microphone". It's not, but I've seen people argue that it's OK for people to believe that because it supports their general (accurate) sentiment that targeted ads are creepy.
      - cyphar 9mo ago
        > See also "instagram is spying on you through your microphone". It's not, but I've seen people argue that it's OK for people to believe that because it supports their general (accurate) sentiment that targeted ads are creepy. I used to be sceptical of this claim but I have found it increasingly difficult to be sceptical after we found out last year that Facebook was exploiting flaws in Android in order to track your browsing history (bypassing the permissions and privilege separation model of Android)[1]. Given they have shown a proclivity to use device exploits to improve their tracking of users, is it really that unbelievable that they would try to figure out a way to use audio data? Does stock Android even show you when an app is using its microphone permission? (GrapheneOS does.) Is it really that unbelievable that they would try to do this if they could? [1]: https://localmess.github.io/ https://localmess.github.io/
        simonw 9mo ago
        If they are using the microphone to target ads, show me the sales pitch that their ad sales people use to get customers to pay more for the benefits of that targeting. (I have a ton more arguments if that's not convinced enough for you, I collect them here: https://simonwillison.net/tags/microphone-ads-conspiracy/ https://simonwillison.net/tags/microphone-ads-conspiracy/ )
        caminanteblanco 9mo ago
        I have already experienced the benefits of sending this to several family members, and I'm thankful for the hard work you put into laying everything out so clearly
        9mo ago
  - aosisbsn 9mo ago
    Any amount of water is not really worth it. Building some roads or trains would be 1000x more valuable to 99% of Americans.
  - array_key_first 9mo ago
    AI most definitely uses more water than a traditional full text search because it is much more computationally expensive. The water figures are very overestimated, but the principle is true: using a super computer to do simple things uses more electricity, compute and therefore water than doing it in a traditional way.
    - simsla 9mo ago
      Yes, and a YouTube video more than a text article. etc. etc. It's a tool. The main question should be: is it useful? In the case of AI, sometimes yes, sometimes no.
      - array_key_first 9mo ago
        I mean, think of it this way. If I built a web app that took HTTP requests and converted them into a YouTube video, then downloaded and decoded that video in software, and then served the request, you'd say "that's stupid - you're using 10,000x more compute than you need to". It's a tool, and using the wrong tool for the wrong job is just wasteful. And, usually, overly complicated and frail. So it's only losses.
galdauts 9mo ago
You see, now they can market the tool as AI-powered! I‘m sure the sales department is overjoyed.

venturecruelty 9mo ago

But not without using a thousand gallons of water and propping up Nvidia shares.

sgt 9mo ago
And there's still a lot of water left. We're just getting started, boys!
Tiberium 9mo ago
I get that the water stereotype is funny, but it gets tiring after a while (because it's not actually true).
- only-one1701 9mo ago
  For what it’s worth: yes, it’s not technically true, but the reason it’s sticking around is because it conveys a deeply felt (and actually true) sentiment that many many people have: the output of generative AI isn’t worth the input.
  - hombre_fatal 9mo ago
    Well, it more demonstrates that people will quickly latch on to convenient lies that support what they want to be true, yet impede real discussion of the trade offs if they can’t even get the basic facts right. It’s not a good thing.
    - only-one1701 9mo ago
      I'm not saying it's "good", I'm just saying that it's worth a qualitative consideration of what it _means_ that this incorrect statement is so persistent beyond "not true, STFU"
  - simonw 9mo ago
    Urgh, I know that it's a solid explanation but I hate the "it may not be true but it captures a truth that people feel" argument so much! See also "instagram is spying on you through your microphone". It's not, but I've seen people argue that it's OK for people to believe that because it supports their general (accurate) sentiment that targeted ads are creepy.
    - cyphar 9mo ago
      > See also "instagram is spying on you through your microphone". It's not, but I've seen people argue that it's OK for people to believe that because it supports their general (accurate) sentiment that targeted ads are creepy. I used to be sceptical of this claim but I have found it increasingly difficult to be sceptical after we found out last year that Facebook was exploiting flaws in Android in order to track your browsing history (bypassing the permissions and privilege separation model of Android)[1]. Given they have shown a proclivity to use device exploits to improve their tracking of users, is it really that unbelievable that they would try to figure out a way to use audio data? Does stock Android even show you when an app is using its microphone permission? (GrapheneOS does.) Is it really that unbelievable that they would try to do this if they could? [1]: https://localmess.github.io/ https://localmess.github.io/
      - simonw 9mo ago
        If they are using the microphone to target ads, show me the sales pitch that their ad sales people use to get customers to pay more for the benefits of that targeting. (I have a ton more arguments if that's not convinced enough for you, I collect them here: https://simonwillison.net/tags/microphone-ads-conspiracy/ https://simonwillison.net/tags/microphone-ads-conspiracy/ )
        caminanteblanco 9mo ago
        I have already experienced the benefits of sending this to several family members, and I'm thankful for the hard work you put into laying everything out so clearly
        9mo ago
- aosisbsn 9mo ago
  Any amount of water is not really worth it. Building some roads or trains would be 1000x more valuable to 99% of Americans.
- array_key_first 9mo ago
  AI most definitely uses more water than a traditional full text search because it is much more computationally expensive. The water figures are very overestimated, but the principle is true: using a super computer to do simple things uses more electricity, compute and therefore water than doing it in a traditional way.
  - simsla 9mo ago
    Yes, and a YouTube video more than a text article. etc. etc. It's a tool. The main question should be: is it useful? In the case of AI, sometimes yes, sometimes no.
    - array_key_first 9mo ago
      I mean, think of it this way. If I built a web app that took HTTP requests and converted them into a YouTube video, then downloaded and decoded that video in software, and then served the request, you'd say "that's stupid - you're using 10,000x more compute than you need to". It's a tool, and using the wrong tool for the wrong job is just wasteful. And, usually, overly complicated and frail. So it's only losses.

galdauts 9mo ago

You see, now they can market the tool as AI-powered! I‘m sure the sales department is overjoyed.