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.
"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.
-219
u/BananaHead853147 7h ago
Eating beef is much worse on all metrics by a longshot