Mordikan

There is a game that is upcoming that I was interested in that clearly used generative AI in a gameplay trailer. I should say I’m not pro/anti generative AI. I’m right down the middle, I see the issues and the potential, so the presence of AI itself for me isn’t a deal killer (Crimson Desert for example).

But, the issue is that this game falsely represented what is going to be in the game. The lighting isn’t planned to be that good. The model rigging isn’t meant to be that fluid. Etc, etc. The problem is a matter of dishonesty.

If a developer uses generative AI for test assets and placeholders, I don’t see that as an issue (especially if they admit to and own that fact). If they use that material for trailers to showcase their work when that will not be part of the work, then that is a different story as that introduces that dishonesty.

I’m just going to end this here with a final comment:

I know I’m not going to change your mind on this. It doesn’t matter what evidence I provide, you just aren’t ready to have that conversation. And that’s ok.

This has never really been about you. It’s been about all the others. It’s about showing how while there is a lot of AI hype, there is an equal amount of anti-AI hype. Misinformation is misinformation. Doesn’t matter your stance.

We have for 4 years now both simultaneously and perpetually been 3 months away from the AI bubble popping and 3 months away from AI stealing everyone’s job.

So, for those that see this insane comment history, understand as well intentioned as some of these posters are, most everything they say is completely fabricated. They are just passing it along without knowing any better.

I’m just going to end this here with a final comment:

I know I’m not going to change your mind on this. It doesn’t matter what evidence I provide, you just aren’t ready to have that conversation. And that’s ok.

This has never really been about you. It’s been about all the others. It’s about showing how while there is a lot of AI hype, there is an equal amount of anti-AI hype. Misinformation is misinformation. Doesn’t matter your stance.

We have for 4 years now both simultaneously and perpetually been 3 months away from the AI bubble popping and 3 months away from AI stealing everyone’s job.

So, for those that see this insane comment history, understand as well intentioned as some of these posters are, most everything they say is completely fabricated. They are just passing it along without knowing any better.

Ok, so despite everything you said, it is NOT the environmental impact that matters. What matters (at least now) is the number of services it provides. I hate to say it but “You’re just choosing to cherry pick one thing that everyone who’s upset should ignore.”

This is gonna sound like a broken record here but… https://kbin.earth/m/gaming@beehaw.org/t/3103626/ChatGPT-LLMs-and-Automating-the-Fun-Out-of-Roleplaying-Don-t/comment/14132956#entry-comment-14132956

Let’s be real here: If subject A destroys the environment and subject B destroys the environment to the same degree, why is the quality/quantity of service provided by either the deciding factor to you when you yourself have stated this is a matter of environmental concern? The outcome being the exact same, the path you take to it is irrelevant. That is the most illogical reason to be ok with anything. And this isn’t me putting words in your mouth, this is literally what you have stated in your comment history.

I’m curious though, what would I have to be doing for you to believe that I’m… I dont know, “allowed”? to talk about AI’s water usage impact?

I would say you are starting to approach an opposing view as treating yours as “wrong thought” when confronted. That is an absolutest method that is only ever used to justify what you think is right and vilify all else. It isn’t a matter of what is “allowed”. There is no restriction to that. But if you put out an idea or belief that can be deconstructed and proven incorrect/incomplete, then people have the right to speak against it.

There are lots of points you can make that are completely valid and evidentiary by nature, but AI water usage isn’t one of them. It has been debunked to point that I would bucket it into the same group that “vaccines cause autism” fit into.

EDIT: Actually I wanted to point out something about the trending mention. You say you don’t try to sway opinion on the meat industry but you do for AI because you get more traction. That’s called audience alignment and is part of shared identity signaling (used algorithmically to define what is currently trending).

Can run on a raspberry pi and does run on a raspberry pi are two different things. I don’t think raspberry pis are the solution here. I’m not cherry picking either as both are clear evils. That is the point. Current non-AI datacenters are using more power in total than AI datacenters. That may (and likely will) change, but the argument that AI datacenters are destroying the environment when the other is destroying it even more (but let’s ignore that one) is moronic by nature.

That by definition isn’t cherry picking. It’s pointing out the logical fallacy in popular thought.

I work in devops. These two things are more alike then you think.

That is a valid point, I think. That isn’t “but what about the environment” but only when convenient. That is local pricing issue which has a very direct and very trackable impact.

If a datacenter opens next door to you, the utility consumption goes up meaning your bill goes up. Unless the datacenter operators are somehow offsetting that increase financially (and that the money is actually be allocated by the city for that purpose), then there is the real impact of datacenters.

AI datacenters do not cause drought. There is no evidence to support that claim. And if you think you do have evidence, I would love to see the source.

And you totally can contain multitudes. People should be like that. But they in practice aren’t. They follow what is trending. For example, if you look through your comment history how many comments will be pertaining to the US meat industry? How many to datacenters?

I would argue that you care a great deal more about one than the other. Which, going back to my original point, why is that 1% more important than the remaining 99% (or specifically the 50% that you care so much about)?

“they’re doing bad so I can too”

I don’t think you understand that the “so I can” part implies you. By virtue of even posting, YOU are pushing datacenter demand. These comments don’t just live in the ether. The whole point is you are cherry picking what you are upset about based on what is trending (as you even mentioned). The point being you are MORE upset about the lesser evil, not that one is justified evil and the other isn’t.

If you enjoy the Two Wrongs Make Right fallacy, then I think you’ll love the Special Pleading fallacy.

I find the environmental argument is always a weak one to make, though. CO2 emissions for non-AI datacenters peaks currently around 210 million tons, with AI datacenters peaking currently around 100 million tons.

So why is more pollution from subject A acceptable, but less from subject B isn’t? I’ve seen people say because A gives “something of worth”, but then that just undermines the whole point of being harmful to the environment. Destruction of the environment is kinda an absolute in that instance, the source shouldn’t be the deciding factor in whether or not we accept it.

The same for the water usage thing (which was debunked). AI datacenters use 68 billions gallons annually (at least by 2028 projected). People are upset about that, but not about the 26 trillion gallons that US agriculture uses. All because “something of worth”, but if it’s that big of a deal why are people focusing on less than 1% of the total consumption? How is that 1% needing protected but the remaining 99% totally disposable?