this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
0 points (50.0% liked)
Videos
15585 readers
367 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to [email protected] instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
Note: bans may apply to both [email protected] and [email protected]
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My point, and the conclusion of the video is more of a "Yes, but..." As he discusses, AI use isn't completely insignificant, but much of the cost (in all aspects) is in R&D and hardware, rather than the results it produces. Its in the same vein as how yes, you should probably feel guilty for using a paper or disposable platic grocery bag over a reusable one, but even if everyone in the world did so, it would make little difference when companies (who do 99.99% of the damage) will continue doing the exact same thing at every opportunity. As AI is driven by speculation rather than by product sales, not using it doesn't stop their IP theft, it may reduce their energy use but likely not a lot (esspecially factoring in human cost to complete a task), and it doesn't stop these companies from manipulating our politics and walking over our laws.
While, technically the video does agree that the answer is 'Yes', the majority of the video is about why that Yes needs a half-dozen asterisks. Simplifying it to just a 'yes' shifts blame away from the ones doing 99.9% of the damage onto individuals who do a tiny fraction of the damage, and who have much less understanding of or influence over the technology.