3 ms·

I think it's incredibly obvious how it connects to his "argument" - nothing he complains about is specific to GenAI. So dressing up his hatred of the technology

by jabedude 10mo ago

I think it's incredibly obvious how it connects to his "argument" - nothing he complains about is specific to GenAI. So dressing up his hatred of the technology in vague environmental concerns is laughably transparent. He and everyone who agrees with his post simply don't like generative AI and don't actually care about "recyclable data centers" or the rape of the natural world. Those concerns are just cudgels to be wielded against a vague threatening enemy when convenient, and completely ignored when discussing the technologies they work on and like

Arodex 10mo ago
You simply don't like any criticism of AI, as shown by your false assertions that Pike works at Google (he left), or the fact Google and others were trying to make their data centers emit less CO2 - and that effort is completely abandoned directly because of AI. And you can't assert that AI is "revolutionary" and "a vague threat" at the same time. If it is the former, it can't be the latter. If it is the latter, it can't be the former.
- ywn 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - mrwrong 10mo ago
    do you get scared when you hear other ghost stories too?
  - Arodex 10mo ago
    Why should I be concerned with something that doesn't exist, will certainly never exist, and even if I were generous and entertained that something that breaks every physical law of the universe starting with entropy could exist, would result in "it" torturing a copy of myself to try to influence me in the past? Nothing there makes sense at any level. But people getting fired and electricity bills skyrocketing (as well as RAM etc.) are there right now.
- tarsinge 10mo ago
  > that effort is completely abandoned directly because of AI That effort is completely abandoned because of the current US administration and POTUS a situation that big tech largely contributed to. It’s not AI that is responsible for the 180 zeitgeist change on environmental issues.
  - SecretDreams 10mo ago
    > It’s not AI that is responsible for the 180 zeitgeist change on environmental issues. Yes, much like it's not the gun's fault when someone is killed by a gun. And, yet, it's pretty reasonable to want regulation around these tools that can be destructive in the wrong hands.
    - user34283 10mo ago
      I don't consider it reasonable to want regulation for tools that are as of now as potentially destructive as free access to Google search.
      - SecretDreams 10mo ago
        I don't consider you reasonable if this is your best attempt at a strawman argument.
    - tarsinge 10mo ago
      This is off topic, I’m talking about the environmental footprint of data centers. In the 2010s I remember when responding to RFPs I had to specify the carbon footprint of our servers. ESG was all the rage and every big tech company was trying to appear green. Fast forward to today where companies, investors, and obviously the administration are more than fine with data centers burning all the oil/gas/coal power that can be found.
      - SecretDreams 10mo ago
        Is it off topic? What're the long term consequences of climate change? Do we even care anymore to your original point? Don't get me wrong, this field is doing damage on a couple of fronts - but climate change is certainly one of them.
- lukan 10mo ago
  "You can't assert that AI is "revolutionary" and "a vague threat" at the same time"" Revolutions always came with vague (or concrete) threats as far as I know.
- jabedude 10mo ago
  > And you can't assert that AI is "revolutionary" and "a vague threat" at the same time. I never asserted that AI is either of those things
moralestapia 10mo ago
[flagged]
Forgeties79 10mo ago
I often find that when people start applying purity tests it’s mainly just to discredit any arguments they don’t like without having to make a case against the substance of the argument. Assess the argument based on its merits. If you have to pick him apart with “he has no right to say it” that is not sufficient.
- perching_aix 10mo ago
  They did also "assess the argument on its merits" though?
  - Forgeties79 10mo ago
    “He just hates GenAI so everything is virtue signaling/a cudgel” is not an assessment. It’s simply dismissing him outright. If they were talking about the merits, they would actually debate whether or not the environmental concerns and such are valid. You can’t just say “you don’t like X so all critiques of X are not just wrong but also inauthentic by default.”
    - perching_aix 10mo ago
      The part where they specifically address Pike's "argument" [0] is where they express that in their view, the energy use issue is a data center problem, not a generative AI one: > nothing he complains about is specific to GenAI (see also all their other scattered gesturings towards Google and their already existing data centers) A lot can be said about this take, but claiming that it doesn't directly and specifically address Pike's "argument", I simply don't think is true. I generally find that when (hyper?)focusing on fallacies and tropes, it's easy to lose sight of what the other person is actually trying to say. Just because people aren't debating in a quality manner, doesn't mean they don't have any points in there, even if those points are ultimately unsound or disagreeable. Let's not mistake form for function. People aren't wrong because they get their debating wrong. They're wrong because they're wrong. [0] in quotes, because I read a rant up there, not an argument - though I'm sure if we zoom way in, the lines blur
- 10mo ago
gtirloni 10mo ago
> nothing he complains about is specific to GenAI Except it definitely is, unless you want to ignore the bubble we're living in right now.
btilly 10mo ago
> nothing he complains about is specific to GenAI. You mean except the bit about how GenAI included his work in its training data without credit or compensation? Or did you disagree with the environmental point that you failed to keep reading?

Arodex 10mo ago

You simply don't like any criticism of AI, as shown by your false assertions that Pike works at Google (he left), or the fact Google and others were trying to make their data centers emit less CO2 - and that effort is completely abandoned directly because of AI. And you can't assert that AI is "revolutionary" and "a vague threat" at the same time. If it is the former, it can't be the latter. If it is the latter, it can't be the former.

ywn 10mo ago
[flagged]
- mrwrong 10mo ago
  do you get scared when you hear other ghost stories too?
- Arodex 10mo ago
  Why should I be concerned with something that doesn't exist, will certainly never exist, and even if I were generous and entertained that something that breaks every physical law of the universe starting with entropy could exist, would result in "it" torturing a copy of myself to try to influence me in the past? Nothing there makes sense at any level. But people getting fired and electricity bills skyrocketing (as well as RAM etc.) are there right now.
tarsinge 10mo ago
> that effort is completely abandoned directly because of AI That effort is completely abandoned because of the current US administration and POTUS a situation that big tech largely contributed to. It’s not AI that is responsible for the 180 zeitgeist change on environmental issues.
- SecretDreams 10mo ago
  > It’s not AI that is responsible for the 180 zeitgeist change on environmental issues. Yes, much like it's not the gun's fault when someone is killed by a gun. And, yet, it's pretty reasonable to want regulation around these tools that can be destructive in the wrong hands.
  - user34283 10mo ago
    I don't consider it reasonable to want regulation for tools that are as of now as potentially destructive as free access to Google search.
    - SecretDreams 10mo ago
      I don't consider you reasonable if this is your best attempt at a strawman argument.
  - tarsinge 10mo ago
    This is off topic, I’m talking about the environmental footprint of data centers. In the 2010s I remember when responding to RFPs I had to specify the carbon footprint of our servers. ESG was all the rage and every big tech company was trying to appear green. Fast forward to today where companies, investors, and obviously the administration are more than fine with data centers burning all the oil/gas/coal power that can be found.
    - SecretDreams 10mo ago
      Is it off topic? What're the long term consequences of climate change? Do we even care anymore to your original point? Don't get me wrong, this field is doing damage on a couple of fronts - but climate change is certainly one of them.
lukan 10mo ago
"You can't assert that AI is "revolutionary" and "a vague threat" at the same time"" Revolutions always came with vague (or concrete) threats as far as I know.
jabedude 10mo ago
> And you can't assert that AI is "revolutionary" and "a vague threat" at the same time. I never asserted that AI is either of those things

moralestapia 10mo ago

[flagged]

Forgeties79 10mo ago

I often find that when people start applying purity tests it’s mainly just to discredit any arguments they don’t like without having to make a case against the substance of the argument. Assess the argument based on its merits. If you have to pick him apart with “he has no right to say it” that is not sufficient.

perching_aix 10mo ago
They did also "assess the argument on its merits" though?
- Forgeties79 10mo ago
  “He just hates GenAI so everything is virtue signaling/a cudgel” is not an assessment. It’s simply dismissing him outright. If they were talking about the merits, they would actually debate whether or not the environmental concerns and such are valid. You can’t just say “you don’t like X so all critiques of X are not just wrong but also inauthentic by default.”
  - perching_aix 10mo ago
    The part where they specifically address Pike's "argument" [0] is where they express that in their view, the energy use issue is a data center problem, not a generative AI one: > nothing he complains about is specific to GenAI (see also all their other scattered gesturings towards Google and their already existing data centers) A lot can be said about this take, but claiming that it doesn't directly and specifically address Pike's "argument", I simply don't think is true. I generally find that when (hyper?)focusing on fallacies and tropes, it's easy to lose sight of what the other person is actually trying to say. Just because people aren't debating in a quality manner, doesn't mean they don't have any points in there, even if those points are ultimately unsound or disagreeable. Let's not mistake form for function. People aren't wrong because they get their debating wrong. They're wrong because they're wrong. [0] in quotes, because I read a rant up there, not an argument - though I'm sure if we zoom way in, the lines blur
10mo ago

gtirloni 10mo ago

> nothing he complains about is specific to GenAI Except it definitely is, unless you want to ignore the bubble we're living in right now.

btilly 10mo ago

> nothing he complains about is specific to GenAI. You mean except the bit about how GenAI included his work in its training data without credit or compensation? Or did you disagree with the environmental point that you failed to keep reading?