3 ms·

The pistachio meme How that data point is interpreted may depend on whether the reader or someone they know likes pistachios or not It might also depend on ho

The pistachio meme How that data point is interpreted may depend on whether the reader or someone they know likes pistachios or not It might also depend on how the person views farmers versus how they view Silicon Valley companies And so on It's not intrinsically clear how a reader is going to interpret that data point without knowing something about the reader Will they opine that water use for some purpose is "worth it" or "not worth it" What do they think of pistachios What do they think of "AI" People might be OK with water use for pistachios but not for "AI" The _amount_ of water use may not be the differentiator. The differentiator might be the _purpose_ of the water use Food versus computers

jason_oster 5mo ago
Your argument is something along the lines of: 1. People dislike X, so a small amount of water being used for X is bad. 2. People like Y, so a large amount of water being used for Y is good. You can't draw any conclusions from this, apart that people dislike some things and like other things. The argument establishes no relation to water usage. That makes the argument against AI "an ethical one because of water usage" just a trope.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
1vuio0pswjnm7 5mo ago
The comments in this thread are hilarioisly nonsensical All the way up to the top comment that refers to a "water usage argument" Whats the argument Its an article reporting Amazon's data center water usage. It does not express an opinion on that number. It discusses so-called "tech" companies' reluctance to release water usage numbers 2.5B gallons. Its a number not an argument Facts are not arguments Why the secrecy around these numbers Why the defensiveness in HN replies
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 5mo ago
  *hilariously
1vuio0pswjnm7 5mo ago
The pistachio business is profitable Not sure about the "AI" business Where "dumb" money flows like water But it seems that there is a limit And so now it must target peoples' retirement savings

jason_oster 5mo ago

Your argument is something along the lines of: 1. People dislike X, so a small amount of water being used for X is bad. 2. People like Y, so a large amount of water being used for Y is good. You can't draw any conclusions from this, apart that people dislike some things and like other things. The argument establishes no relation to water usage. That makes the argument against AI "an ethical one because of water usage" just a trope.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

1vuio0pswjnm7 5mo ago

The comments in this thread are hilarioisly nonsensical All the way up to the top comment that refers to a "water usage argument" Whats the argument Its an article reporting Amazon's data center water usage. It does not express an opinion on that number. It discusses so-called "tech" companies' reluctance to release water usage numbers 2.5B gallons. Its a number not an argument Facts are not arguments Why the secrecy around these numbers Why the defensiveness in HN replies

1vuio0pswjnm7 5mo ago
*hilariously

1vuio0pswjnm7 5mo ago

The pistachio business is profitable Not sure about the "AI" business Where "dumb" money flows like water But it seems that there is a limit And so now it must target peoples' retirement savings