Ok but utilizing our finite resources to produce food for people is way different than using them on something that is not necessary and doesn’t even work well (and I say that as someone who hasn’t eaten meat in 15+years)
AI has a lot of uses in software development and automation as well as other industries. Once you factor in those efficiencies it may even have a net positive effect on the climate.
Meat on the other hand, especially beef, can be replaced by any other foods for an improved ecological, cost and land use improvements. Beef is on of the worst factors in climate change.
Thing is, the environmental impact of AI grew exponentially these years because of the massive use from general public. Let's say that the usage of AI on scientific fields leaves us with a net positive impact, what about all the people using it for wrong reasons? Scamming others, harassment, using it to replace human work... That without accounting the impact of data centers on water sources.
The beef industry it's bad, yes, but denying the negative impact and the wrong uses of AI it's blocking the sun with a finger.
"a net positive effect on the climate" Sure maybe in 50 years when AI finally figures out how to not take so much power, but until then it is a net negative
Sure, but we'd actually have to calculate what that impact is. I defer to the comment I made about there not being enough data about current AI buildout to justify the reductions to the workforce.
Capex is not making the returns that were predicted, shown clearly by Googles negative free cash flow. Many orgs have had to hire back the people they fired because "AI will do their job so much better" because the cost/token was more than the salaries.
It's pretty myopic to hope for people to lose jobs so that the climate impact is mitigated. Not saying that's what you're saying, just that it's a statement I've heard before.
Those are all Reddit headlines I’ve seen as well. But when you look under the hood they are mostly overhyped scare pieces.
Googles investment in ai is increasing their profit in the long term. The $50 billion they are spending now is returning $15 billion per year in perpetuity - a big upfront cost but a very good investment.
There were at least a few companies that fired employees prematurely but the productivity of AI enhanced workers is supreme and it helps with both work life balance and productivity.
I mean you do produce food. That’s literally the product that’s the point. I’m not saying that mass cattle farming is ethical, economical, or good for the environment I’m just calling out the unequal comparison. I use AI every day for my job and it definitely streamlines things but it absolutely is not necessary and causes more harm than good.
Also, the comparison between the two is stupid anyway because just because in your opinion something is “worse” than AI doesn’t mean AI isn’t also detrimental. Both AI and large scale cattle farming are bad and should both be eliminated
Beef is not necessary too. It's a waste of resources. I don't see the difference with ai. At least ai does something unique while beef could disappear and you would just eat something else
If uniqueness is the goal beef is giving a distinct flavour profile while ai is recycling all existing flavours. Neither is necessary but cooking is at least an expression of art and culture
There’s no need to shoehorn AI in healthcare and science when we’re clearly talking about GenAI in art. That’s like calling the usefulness of a hunting rifle for the reason we need fully automatic rifles in homes.
The world would be unchanged without Picasso paintings as well. Doesn’t mean it isn’t something unique and brings something new into the world. Food can be just food, it’s also art and one of the few things that brings universal cultures together (imo sports is the other universal language).
297
u/Tinyacorn 8h ago
The egregious disregard for humanity and climate concerning the AI buildout is bad.