There aren't a million better places to put efforts into. This is a good place to put effort into stopping because it isn't yet entrenched, and you stop the other negative effects besides just the pollution and water use, and you can build a coalition with the people against the other negative effects of AI.

>This is a good place to put effort into stopping because it isn't yet entrenched

Oh yeah, excellent place to put effort, it's not entrenched, it's just straight up against technological giants in a race that is considered relevant for national security. That should be easy yeah, outstanding target to set.

>and you stop the other negative effects besides just the pollution and water use, and you can build a coalition with the people against the other negative effects of AI.

I'll just repeat myself here:

>Because this whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with pollution or water. It has to do with people hating AI and looking to portray it negatively.

You are a deeply unserious person :'D

You are insinuating that a fight against tech giants is the preferable option regarding pollution and I'm unserious??

The effects of the tech giants encroachment of society and the stakes and gravity of the situation is so serious that some people think its important not to allow attempts to frame the struggle as Sisyphean to succeed.

>The effects of the tech giants encroachment of society and the stakes and gravity of the situation is so serious

Regarding pollution??? Completely preposterous.

Bob: "I hate <company> and what they're doing to this cute fluffy animal I would like to do things to stop that"

Tom: "Well actually they're not nearly as bad as <other company> to said fluffy creature and if you actually cared about fluffy creature you'd only focus on them"

Great argument. Hate to be the one to tell you this but, two things can be true at once.

Why is your hypothetical Tom wrong to claim that Bob primarily cares about hating <company> and is using fluffy creatures as an excuse because it sounds superficially better than the actual reasons Bob has a problem with <company>?

And I'm guessing that I'm supposed to believe here that the reason Bob hates explicitly this one company and is dismissing 99% of the damage done to the cute fluffy animal by corporations that seemingly get paid to exterminate them in brutal ways, the reason many people seem to spouse this extremely bizarre, specific belief is "just because" right? Not an obscene amount of hypocrisy and dishonesty?

Because I don't have anywhere near enough brain damage to do that and I'm not sure I can get there in a medically safe manner.

Buddy, you don't know a damn thing about agriculture. These things aren't even remotely the same conversation. My point still stands that both can be true. Sure there's inefficiencies in agriculture that can be addressed and there's obviously inefficiencies in all data centers that can be addressed. If people chose to fight one over the other I guess they'll all brain dead according to your world view. I'll make sure to check-in with you next time I don't like something to make sure you approve of it :)

I'm pretty sure most people would see Toms point as valid?

If Bob made a huge deal about company's abuse of fluffy animal and never otherwise talked about fluffy animal, that would seen as inauthentic

This is 100% true. Every person I know - and I know a lot of them because I'm one of them myself - who already seriously cared about the environment pre-AI, including making personal sacrifices for it, doesn't place outsized importance on AI's environmental impact compared to other sources. Every person who frequently brings up AI's environmental damage are those who honestly never really cared about the environment/climate, at most paying lip service to it for brownie points/to feel better but never took any actions that would inconvenience themselves.

Because we who actually care about this subject go through the effort of educating ourselves and tend to use our energy in ways that actually make a difference, that are effective. Because we care about making an impact, not about brownie points.

People are just embarrassed to admit they're scared they might lose their job. They shouldn't be but they are because they've attached their identity to their career and to the concept of it making them uniquely skilled and creative, in a way that a machine could never replace.

Please don't take this as saying they are replaceable by AI. Maybe it never will. That doesn't matter, what matters is that they're scared that it will, and they're too embarrassed to admit they're scared of it, so they point towards the environmental damage.