3 ms·

absolutely without a doubt it is

by 3dsnano 6mo ago

bayindirh 6mo ago
If that energy is used for research, maybe. If used to answer customer questions or generate Studio Ghibli knock-offs, it's not worth it, even a bit.
- 3dsnano 6mo ago
  what’s the difference between those two? how can you say one has more value than the other?
  - bayindirh 6mo ago
    One is trying to save the future of the planet and the humanity with science, the other one is mocking a man who devoted his whole life to his art, even if it means spending years to perfect a three-second sequence for kicks and monies. If you see no difference between them, I can't continue to discuss this with you, sorry.
- lxgr 6mo ago
  To you. Fortunately nobody elected you chief resource allocator of the planet. And I say that as somebody that also finds Ghibli knock-off avatars used by AI bros in incredibly bad taste (or, arguably an even worse crime against taste, a dated 2025 vibe).
  - bayindirh 6mo ago
    Thanks for your personal jab. Another nice comment to frame and hang to my wall. I like your discussion style.
    - lxgr 6mo ago
      Passing moral judgement about other people's value preferences seems pretty preposterous to me as well, so I was being a bit glib, but to be clear: I don't want to live in a world in which people get to decide what others can and can't do with their share of resources (after properly accounting for all externalities, including pollution, the potential future value of non-renewable present resources etc. – this is where today's reality often and massively misses that ideal) based on their subjective moral criteria. Not even just for ethical/moral reasons, but also for practical ones: It’s infinitely harder to get everybody to additionally agree on value of use than on fairness of allocation alone. After thoroughly mixing these two quite distinct concerns, you'll also have a very hard time convincing me that your concerns for river pollution etc. (which I take very seriously as potentially unaccounted negative externalities, if they exist) are completely free from motivated reasoning about "immoral usage".

absolutely without a doubt it is

by 3dsnano 6mo ago

absolutely without a doubt it is

If that energy is used for research, maybe. If used to answer customer questions or generate Studio Ghibli knock-offs, it's not worth it, even a bit.

3dsnano 6mo ago
what’s the difference between those two? how can you say one has more value than the other?
- bayindirh 6mo ago
  One is trying to save the future of the planet and the humanity with science, the other one is mocking a man who devoted his whole life to his art, even if it means spending years to perfect a three-second sequence for kicks and monies. If you see no difference between them, I can't continue to discuss this with you, sorry.
lxgr 6mo ago
To you. Fortunately nobody elected you chief resource allocator of the planet. And I say that as somebody that also finds Ghibli knock-off avatars used by AI bros in incredibly bad taste (or, arguably an even worse crime against taste, a dated 2025 vibe).
- bayindirh 6mo ago
  Thanks for your personal jab. Another nice comment to frame and hang to my wall. I like your discussion style.
  - lxgr 6mo ago
    Passing moral judgement about other people's value preferences seems pretty preposterous to me as well, so I was being a bit glib, but to be clear: I don't want to live in a world in which people get to decide what others can and can't do with their share of resources (after properly accounting for all externalities, including pollution, the potential future value of non-renewable present resources etc. – this is where today's reality often and massively misses that ideal) based on their subjective moral criteria. Not even just for ethical/moral reasons, but also for practical ones: It’s infinitely harder to get everybody to additionally agree on value of use than on fairness of allocation alone. After thoroughly mixing these two quite distinct concerns, you'll also have a very hard time convincing me that your concerns for river pollution etc. (which I take very seriously as potentially unaccounted negative externalities, if they exist) are completely free from motivated reasoning about "immoral usage".