6 ms·

I get that the water stereotype is funny, but it gets tiring after a while (because it's not actually true).

by Tiberium 10mo ago

only-one1701 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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
      - cyphar 10mo ago
        I get your point, but can you point to a sales pitch which included "exploit security flaws in Android to improve tracking"? Probably not, but we know for a fact they did that. Also, your own blog lists an leak from 2024 about a Facebook partner bragging about this ability[1]. You don't find the claim credible (and you might be right about that, I haven't looked into it), but I find it strange that you are asking for an example that your own website provides? [1]: https://futurism.com/the-byte/facebook-partner-phones-listening-microphone https://futurism.com/the-byte/facebook-partner-phones-listen...
        simonw 10mo ago
        That claim is SO not credible that I think serious outlets that report on it non-critically lose credibility by doing so. Seriously: the entire idea there is that there was a vast global conspiracy to secretly spy on people to target ads which was blown wide open by THIS deck: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25051283-cmg-pitch-deck-on-voice-data-advertising-active-listening https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25051283-cmg-pitch-d...
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
aosisbsn 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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.

I get that the water stereotype is funny, but it gets tiring after a while (because it's not actually true).

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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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
    - cyphar 10mo ago
      I get your point, but can you point to a sales pitch which included "exploit security flaws in Android to improve tracking"? Probably not, but we know for a fact they did that. Also, your own blog lists an leak from 2024 about a Facebook partner bragging about this ability[1]. You don't find the claim credible (and you might be right about that, I haven't looked into it), but I find it strange that you are asking for an example that your own website provides? [1]: https://futurism.com/the-byte/facebook-partner-phones-listening-microphone https://futurism.com/the-byte/facebook-partner-phones-listen...
      - simonw 10mo ago
        That claim is SO not credible that I think serious outlets that report on it non-critically lose credibility by doing so. Seriously: the entire idea there is that there was a vast global conspiracy to secretly spy on people to target ads which was blown wide open by THIS deck: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25051283-cmg-pitch-deck-on-voice-data-advertising-active-listening https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25051283-cmg-pitch-d...
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]

aosisbsn 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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.