I think the point here is that objecting to AI data center water use and not to say, alfalfa farming in Arizona, reads as reactive rather than principled. But more importantly, there are vast, imminent social harms from AI that get crowded out by water use discourse. IMO, the environmental attack on AI is more a hangover from crypto than a thoughtful attempt to evaluate the costs and benefits of this new technology.
On the flip side, the crypto hype machine pretty seamlessly flipped to the AI hype machine, so it makes sense the same anti crowd shifted pretty seamlessly. Given the practical applications of crypto were minimal and the externalities were mostly crime and pollution, I’m not at all surprised that many people expect the same for AI.
The anti-crypto people were correct, though. Why should we not push back when we’re seeing the same type of baseless hype that surrounded crypto being cultivated around the AI space?
They were and we should push back and yes, there is a mountain of baseless hype. But if you train your fire on the wrong thing, you risk not addressing the actual problem.
But if I say "I object to AI because <list of harms> and its water use", why would you assume that I don't also object to alfalfa farming in Arizona?
Similarly, if I say "I object to the genocide in Gaza", would you assume that I don't also object to the Uyghur genocide?
This is nothing but whataboutism.
People are allowed to talk about the bad things AI does without adding a 3-page disclaimer explaining that they understand all the other bad things happening in the world at the same time.
Because your argument is more persuasive to more people if you don't expand your criticism to encompass things that are already normalized. Focus on the unique harms IMO.
If you take a strong argument and through in an extra weak point, that just makes the whole argument less persuasive (even if that's not rational, it's how people think).
You wouldn't say the "Uyghur genocide is bad because of ... also the disposable plastic crap that those slave factories produce is terrible for the environment."
Plastic waste is bad but it's on such a different level from genocide that it's a terrible argument to make.
Adding a weak argument is a red flag for BS detectors. It's what prosecutors do to hoodwink a jury into stacking charges over a singular underlying crime.
I think you'll have a difficult time comprehending the phenomenon if you look for reasoned arguments. A much more productive framework, IMO, is to see it in terms of a feedback loop between funding sources and the aggregate valence of speech on a particular topic.
The energy industry is one of the largest in the world, with trillions of revenue on the line. The FF component of that industry has every incentive to turn sentiment against upstart competitors, but you do that at scale less by reasoned arguments and more by gut level appeals: "the people who want renewable energy hate your culture and way of life", "renewal installations are ugly and a blight on the landscape of your home", etc.
One thing Jenny Chase (longtime solar analyst with Bloomberg) likes to point out is that in many places, solar panels are actually cheaper than fencing materials [1]
Unfortunately, she doesn't say what kind of fence she's talking about. The kind of fancy privacy fence people put up between yards, maybe; but I'd be impressed if they're cheaper than livestock fence, which is the context some people are talking about in this thread. A typical cattle fence (woven wire, steel posts, barbed wire on top) will cost about $2500 per quarter-mile right now for the materials.
I'm not sure what a quarter-mile of solar panels four feet high would cost, or whether they'd survive the occasional cow rubbing on them. Neat idea, though.
When I bought my solar panels, they showed me their test video of launching balls at them to simulate hail. They said you're toast if it gets to baseball size but below that you should be fine.
Yes, this reminded me of a similar experience camping with friends where we could only describe the foliage as “ultragreen”. An incredibly vivid blue-green tone that suffused the whole island where we were staying. Been looking for explanations since
I’ve noticed recently (maybe I missed an announcement) that Siri now functions locally for at least some commands. Try putting an Apple watch in airplane mode and asking it to set a timer or reminder
Siri has had limited offline functionality since at least iOS 15? Although I don't think most users noticed at the time, since most of Siri's command vocabulary is for things that require a network connection...
Frontend dev here. I think it’s important to remember that there’s not necessarily one use case to rule them all when it comes to the web. If this helps a smaller project that is Python-first get their work in front of a wider audience, is that a bad thing? I’m inclined to think it’s just fine to have lots of approaches available.
The beans chapter stuck with me too. Just fished out my copy:
> The best instruction I've read for how long to cook beans comes from a collection of recipes called "The Best in American Cooking" by Clementine Paddleford. The book instructs to simmer "until beans have gorged themselves with fat and water and swelled like the fat boy in his prime."
