Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
[email protected]
[email protected]
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
I don't understand the cost:benefit analysis here. All this cost for some shitty chatbots? Even the more practical uses for AI just don't seem worth that cost.
It kind of feels like this is another symptom of wealth inequality where some people or companies are so wealthy that they can make unjustifiable investments like this.
I'd like to think that the AI bubble will pop and take these investors with it, but that's probably wishful thinking.
Great, let's increase pollution along with energy costs for the average person so people can have "advanced" predictive text algorithms and a new world of fap material. Literally, the worst "technology" since coal burning power plants.
And let's not forget the "game-changing" technology that those coal plants are burning for, too: shitcoins.
It's pretty great tech if you employ a lot of people whose only job is to handle customer complaints and you don't really care if those complaints are handled well or not.
Write me a 5 page article on why we should all stop using plastic straws to prevent global warming.
Why not stopping use of BOTH plastic straws and wasteful LLMs?
Because the latter isn't going to happen until someone does a lot of [REDACTED], and paper straws are fucking awful so while the world burns and the turtles are boiled alive, many may want to drink from a disposable straw that doesn't melt in your mouth.
Why use straws at all?
Straws are useful for babies, the elderly or disabled who are unable to drink from a glass without making a mess.
Hopefully you're able to drink from a glass, and don't need a straw.
What country are you from?
We don't get glasses in the US, we get barely laminated paper cups, or plastic cups in the rare occasion the restaurant doesn't have a disposable plastic mandate. The mouths of said cups are far too wide to reasonably drink out of without straws, and without the lid the cups are far too structurally unstable to drink out of without at least some spillage or awkward handling.
They're designed for straw based drinking, and changing that would require an entirely different vessel.
I'm not from the US, but know about the kind of cups you're talking about. They're common everywhere at fast food, and other restaurants selling food to go.
They're indeed designed for using a straw. When having lunch outside I typical bring a water bottle. Then buy food without drink, or refill if there's a dispenser. It helps avoid unhealthy sodas, and avoid the cup and straw altogether.
Capitalism has been the world-devouring AI the whole time. 
We're considering letting Oracle, Meta, and Microsoft (that I know of) reactivate or otherwise make use of nuclear power plants to power their AI ambitions. How long before that turns into owning and operating nuclear reactors in house? Now I'm not of the opinion that nuclear power is inherently unsafe but if I had to pick my worst case scenario of implementation it may well be letting big tech run a facility like that.
On the other hand, I see first hand on a daily basis the kind of power consumption we're talking about putting to use for AI and that's a huge fucking problem if you care about the environment at all. I don't know what the right answer is. All I can say is I hope we invent scalable fusion reactors, or some other way to harness vast amounts of energy, very quickly. Otherwise this is not going to end well.
If that’s what they want, then make them pay for it. No subsidies for this bullshit.
I wish they would pay for it themselves. Microsoft is getting a $1.6 billion federal loan to restart Three Mile Island Unit 1, which was shut down because it was not profitable. They will probably find out that a half century old power plant is too expensive to run and shut it back down within a few years.
If i ever hear someone complain about CERN / LHC power consumption again i will just slap them.
“But but but… AI will solve the pollution problem!!1!”
In the end, indeed it will.
You could just put regulations in place for these companies to follow. They will find a source of power and if you require that it is environmentally safe they will find green solutions.
“Could” is key here. You know as well as I that even in Europe, this isn’t going to happen.
Related: I did read somewhere that OpenAI’s Sam Altman invested US$370m in (tadaa) fusion - the energy source that’s been expected within 30 years for as long as I can remember. Like it or not , that’s never going to “fix” anything in 3 years time.
"Won't have more pollution if everyone is dead from pollution and it's effects" taps forehead
It's already stupid. Like usual, it's just going to get more stupid.
Ok