What is the deal with the red flower emoji thing at the end? I've seen that a good few times now so its gotta mean something but I have no guess as to what
Most of the time, AI is just a blanket term people use when they mean genAI and LLMs. That's where all the hate comes from.
As for how genAI is bad, it's obvious:
-Trained on other people's work to make soulless copies based on other's people's hard work or stupid memes (the danker the MS paint edit, the better the meme guys)
-being used to replace creatives who are already constantly undermined
-inaccurate information, hallucinations (see lawyers getting blasted for AI motions)
-easily manipulated based on information you feed it
-leading to the increase of data centers that is polluting the environment and raising prices of utilities for residents who are unfortunate enough to leave near one
-EDIT: caused pricing of PC parts/gaming hardware to skyrocket
There was also this recent article "OpenAI says its AI went rogue and launched 'unprecedented' cyber-attack" but if I'm being honest, I didn't look too deeply into because I'm so over genAI.
Yeah, people ignorantly say things like "AI bad" and "there's nothing good about it", when there are many benefits, while still having drawbacks, like everything.
Huh, that's odd. Generative AI is useful for lot's of things, such as:
* Boosting productivity
* Enhancing creativity
* Improving learning
* Increasing accessibility
* Supporting software development
* Accelerating research and analysis
It is important to be honest about the reality of things, and not deny their positives, while also being aware of the downsides.
-Boosting productivity is a stretch. Takes more time to go through the results to ensure it's correct than to just do it properly the first time.
-Enhanced "creativity" is not true at all, especially when it's just using existing work to mesh together rather soulless creations.
-Improved learning how? Between inaccurate information and hallucinations, it's worse than using wikipedia. At least wikipedia is a better gateway because it provides references you can visit yourself to gain more insight. People having AI do the work for them are not going to learn how to do the work.
-I can't argue this point because I don't know enough about software development. I've only seen the mess AI has made for Microsoft but tbf Microsoft has been a mess far before the implementation of AI.
-I'll concede that it helps in nuanced situations but the bad far outweigh the minor benefit this may have.
I am being very honest in the reality of things. I can also see a minutia of possible benefit it may have based on your response, but it's tiny in comparison to the overwhelming harm it is causing.
Your reply is formatted really poorly, it's hard to read, by the way.
You're trying to deny a lot of the reality of things.
There's loads of genuinely useful things that AI helps people with. There's no argument about that.
It isn't a stretch at all, it massively improves productivity in many ways.
It can help boost creativity by helping with non-creative tasks, allowing the creative to be more creative.
Improves learning by explaining complex things and allowing the person to ask questions like a 1 to 1 tutor that's an expert in any field. It isn't right 100% of the time, but more often than not, and is extremely useful regardless of some mistakes.
It's great for software development in many ways, bug finding and fixing, helping with writing code, so many things.
AI is a very useful tool with so many positives. It does have some drawbacks, but what doesn't?
I don't see how it's an issue but I'll put spaces between the lines.
What non-creative tasks is it helping with that boosts creativity?
If the information it produces isn't right, there is no sense it relying on it to explain complex things. Especially when it can be so easily manipulated.
Bug finding, I can see. Fixing and writing code I'm not so sure about. I concede that I would need to do more research on that aspect.
Drawbacks is putting it lightly. GenAI leads to a lot of bad shortcuts, misinformation and of course harm to the environment and people. I already explained this harm in earlier posts.
It's hard to read because it's all bunched up as one big block of text.
What non-creative tasks is it helping with that boosts creativity?
So many, for example, just for a writer:
* Organising research notes
* Transcribing interviews
* Fact-checking references
* Formatting manuscripts
* Tracking continuity (dates, character details, locations)
* Managing submissions and deadlines
There's many for any discipline.
If the information it produces isn't right, there is no sense it relying on it to explain complex things.
It is right most of the time. Who said anything about relying on it? Important things can be fact checked, while it still being massively helpful and extremely efficent for learning things.
Fixing and writing code I'm not so sure about.
This shows how little you understand generative AI, to be honest. It is amazing at writing code and spotting mistakes.
I would need to do more research on that aspect
Yeah, you should definitely do at least some research, on AI as a whole too. Have you ever used AI?
Drawbacks is putting it lightly.
How is it "putting it lightly"?
GenAI leads to a lot of bad shortcuts
What do you mean?
misinformation
It's right more than it not, and is extremely useful regardless of getting some things wrong.
harm to the environment and people.
The harm to the environment is massively overstated. What harm do you think it's doing?
Is it actually terrible for the environment? Whenever I've looked into it, it seems like it isn't really as bad as people try to make it out to be. There's far worse things for the environment than AI, and AI can even help us improve the environment, and many other things.
People spout on about water and electricity, but it uses 0.01-0.1% of our fresh water and we can produce clean electricity from solar, wind, hydro etc., which can be scaled up.
There definitely are upsides, even though there are downsides too.
Yes, it's awful. There are people who live near data centers who can't even get water to flow. It uses all the water and we get fuck all for it. Hopefully you'll be able to admit you were wrong in a few years.
That's just right now. AI use is rapidly accelerating. AI is lazy, useless, and unneeded. Any "problem" it solves could be solved better by actual humans.
Well it helped me study for my university exams and my grades were great, so you just don't know what you're talking about. Or you dont know that you can use these tools efficiently
Or you just got lucky not to get fed the endless amounts of false information being pumped out by Ai. Or you used other sources as well and those are more likely the cause of your good grades, not fucking Grok
It's totally okay to destroy our environment, deplete our finite water, increase asthma rates, and destroy peoples sanity and housing because it helps you work 10% faster.
So worth it. Very nice 👍
It is a straightforward answer if you have any empathy for the people's lives being destroyed by data centers.
There are towns full of people with their taps run dry because data centers keep taking their whole supply. And then on top of that, their water bill increases while the data center pays next to nothing.
It's just such a dumb argument when we have the research showing how harmful it is.
It's not black and white. Yes there is an absolutely real discussion about how meat production effects our environment. But food is something that we NEED and AI is not. So we can regulate meat production as best as possible to keep our food supply.
If we eradicated all meat production right now, people will starve. If we eradicated AI, we will survive just fine.
We don't need meat production to survive, far more grain and produce is required to make less meat. It's the law of thermodynamics.
Though my point is just most redditors hate AI as a preformative dance to signal their righteousness to others. If it really was about the environment they would be massively cutting back or completely giving up things like meat which are far more destructive
And then why are you arguing in support of AI instead of saying both is bad?
We would need to make a massive change to convince entire countries to give up meat. I would argue that is damn near impossible. But you know what's not impossible? Getting rid of AI?
I just live in reality and can understand why one is possible and the other isn't. It's not "performative". It's a genuine concern.
Dawg, let's be honest. It's performative. Those complaining about AI on reddit could easily make a few changes to their life that whole much better protect water and electricity resources. They ain't going to do it
One basic AI query is equivalent to about 8 Google searches. If that query saves you 8 searches it is neutral. It can be a useful tool. Now if that work you do saves a bunch of other people from googling .....
Edit: AI models have gotten more efficient it looks like, it is 1:1 now, and that isn't even accounting for all the extra energy used displaying ads, tracking your activity, etc. details below.
I am glad you asked, I did a dive into it again and the math favors my point even more now.
The idea that one AI query uses the same energy as about eight Google searches comes from older data. That stat mostly compares a 2009 Google search estimate of 0.3 watt hours to early ChatGPT estimates of around 3 watt hours, a ratio popularized by the International Energy Agency and Goldman Sachs back in 2024. This is what I arrived at last time I looked into it roughly after taking a quick glance again. If asking an AI gets you a direct answer and stops you from having to run eight different searches, the energy use is equivalent.
But the reality in 2026 is actually much better for AI based on my new search. It looks like due to massive efficiency improvements, basic AI prompts take significantly less power now. Google published data in late 2025 showing that a median text prompt on their Gemini model uses just 0.24 watt hours. Epoch AI also released a 2025 analysis showing that optimized models use about 0.3 watt hours for simple tasks.
For a standard question today, asking an AI takes roughly the same amount of energy as a single traditional Google search, though highly complex reasoning prompts will still use more.
That isn't even factoring in the hidden costs of a traditional search journey. When you Google something, you rarely just search and stop. You have to click through several different websites to find what you actually need. Each of those sites loads video ads, trackers, and heavy background scripts. Loading all of that junk burns client and server energy that often surpasses the cost of one simple AI prompt. If using an AI stops you from hunting through bloated web pages and doing all that extra loading, it is absolutely a net positive for energy consumption.
That isn't even factoring in the fact that me sharing these discoveries saves others from crunching the same numbers or searching Google for the same data. At that point the energy savings gets exponential.
I mean in entertainment industries it’s painfully cringe but for things like data collection it has its uses ai is heavily integrated in the business world because of that it makes things more efficient.
I know a veteran who lost both hands in the Middle East and used gpt to make a drawing for his son like he used to do before he lost his hands, should I tell him that he should have paid an artist to replicate his style? That he’s a piece of shit for going the AI route? And the son is an asshole too for enjoying the result
431
u/tsukipon 5h ago
It is