You simply don't like any criticism of AI, as shown by your false assertions that Pike works at Google (he left), or the fact Google and others were trying to make their data centers emit less CO2 - and that effort is completely abandoned directly because of AI.

And you can't assert that AI is "revolutionary" and "a vague threat" at the same time. If it is the former, it can't be the latter. If it is the latter, it can't be the former.

> that effort is completely abandoned directly because of AI

That effort is completely abandoned because of the current US administration and POTUS a situation that big tech largely contributed to. It’s not AI that is responsible for the 180 zeitgeist change on environmental issues.

> It’s not AI that is responsible for the 180 zeitgeist change on environmental issues.

Yes, much like it's not the gun's fault when someone is killed by a gun. And, yet, it's pretty reasonable to want regulation around these tools that can be destructive in the wrong hands.

I don't consider it reasonable to want regulation for tools that are as of now as potentially destructive as free access to Google search.

I don't consider you reasonable if this is your best attempt at a strawman argument.

This is off topic, I’m talking about the environmental footprint of data centers. In the 2010s I remember when responding to RFPs I had to specify the carbon footprint of our servers. ESG was all the rage and every big tech company was trying to appear green. Fast forward to today where companies, investors, and obviously the administration are more than fine with data centers burning all the oil/gas/coal power that can be found.

Is it off topic?

What're the long term consequences of climate change? Do we even care anymore to your original point?

Don't get me wrong, this field is doing damage on a couple of fronts - but climate change is certainly one of them.

Why should I be concerned with something that doesn't exist, will certainly never exist, and even if I were generous and entertained that something that breaks every physical law of the universe starting with entropy could exist, would result in "it" torturing a copy of myself to try to influence me in the past?

Nothing there makes sense at any level.

But people getting fired and electricity bills skyrocketing (as well as RAM etc.) are there right now.

do you get scared when you hear other ghost stories too?

"You can't assert that AI is "revolutionary" and "a vague threat" at the same time""

Revolutions always came with vague (or concrete) threats as far as I know.

> And you can't assert that AI is "revolutionary" and "a vague threat" at the same time.

I never asserted that AI is either of those things

> nothing he complains about is specific to GenAI.

You mean except the bit about how GenAI included his work in its training data without credit or compensation?

Or did you disagree with the environmental point that you failed to keep reading?

I often find that when people start applying purity tests it’s mainly just to discredit any arguments they don’t like without having to make a case against the substance of the argument.

Assess the argument based on its merits. If you have to pick him apart with “he has no right to say it” that is not sufficient.

They did also "assess the argument on its merits" though?

“He just hates GenAI so everything is virtue signaling/a cudgel” is not an assessment. It’s simply dismissing him outright. If they were talking about the merits, they would actually debate whether or not the environmental concerns and such are valid. You can’t just say “you don’t like X so all critiques of X are not just wrong but also inauthentic by default.”

The part where they specifically address Pike's "argument" [0] is where they express that in their view, the energy use issue is a data center problem, not a generative AI one:

> nothing he complains about is specific to GenAI

(see also all their other scattered gesturings towards Google and their already existing data centers)

A lot can be said about this take, but claiming that it doesn't directly and specifically address Pike's "argument", I simply don't think is true.

I generally find that when (hyper?)focusing on fallacies and tropes, it's easy to lose sight of what the other person is actually trying to say. Just because people aren't debating in a quality manner, doesn't mean they don't have any points in there, even if those points are ultimately unsound or disagreeable.

Let's not mistake form for function. People aren't wrong because they get their debating wrong. They're wrong because they're wrong.

[0] in quotes, because I read a rant up there, not an argument - though I'm sure if we zoom way in, the lines blur

This thread is basically an appeal to authority fallacy so attacking the authority is fair game.

>appeal to authority

How so? He’s talking about what happened to him in the context of his professional expertise/contributions. It’s totally valid for him to talk about this subject. His experience, relevance, etc. are self apparent. No one is saying “because he’s an expert” to explain everything.

They literally (using AI) wrote him an email about his work and contributions. His expertise can’t be removed from the situation even if we want to.

having made Go amd parts pf Unix gives him no authority in the realms that his criticisms are aimed at though - environment science, civil engineering, resource management etc

not having a good spam filter is a kinda funny reason for somebody to have a crash out.

The "attack on the authority" is rather flat though.

> nothing he complains about is specific to GenAI

Except it definitely is, unless you want to ignore the bubble we're living in right now.