“name one good thing that you can make your machine”
“it can add peanut butter and jelly to bread”
“we had that, it was called a knife”
“yes but this machine works by pouring arsenic into the water supply!”
I dont care about the stolen valor I’m saying this machine did something we could already do slightly faster at a massive social and environmental cost.
None, I use ai because it helps me, im not here to convince people who appear to live in a chatgpt 3.5 turbo world that ai is useful because it very clearly is
Torvalds said his position on this is a pragmatic one that’s “based on technical merit. Not fear of new tools.” And when it comes to utility, Torvalds said that “AI is a tool, just like other tools we use. And it’s clearly a useful one. It may not have been that ‘clearly’ even just a year ago, but it’s no longer in question today. … Anybody who doubts that clearly hasn’t actually used it.”
This is like when google came out and I told someone it was amazing and in response they said they prefer dogpile, sure fair enough but to argue technics then we have a difference of opinion
Name one good thing a food processor has made. That’s what you sound like.
Fyi, an AI request is about 1 second of microwave use. I’m guessing you never use a microwave, a minute worth would be more than my daily use of energy with AI.
We’re past the point where you can pretend AI doesn’t have multiple massive negative impacts. Sure, your individual use is not a problem on its own. But the models you used had to be trained. Future models need to be trained. And that cost must also be considered in each of your queries. You’re still participating in normalizing and justifying the existence of AI. All while they extract value from you and others they never got permission from.
Well, I guess we’ll just see who was right in 20 years when we’re overwhelmed by the flood of climate caused migration while at the same time having lost the ability to have any independent thought.
In the end, it’s electricity. The only thing seperating good vs bad AI is a proper grid running around renewable which we need in any case and should have had a decade ago.
It’s also massive hypocrisy. Data centres have been around for a while, no one complains about the cost of running YouTube and Netflix, or the cost of developing CoD and running the servers. One AI query is about 10 seconds of streaming, are you critical about watching tv? Should I calculate the cost of making a movie and remove it from the 10 seconds or do you only use that logic with AI?
You got told to be mad by the media and that’s why you are mad.
Ahhh yes, I’m ignoring your point but you aren’t with your trite reply?
I addressed your point. You blame climate change and environmental damage on it while I’m saying that’s on lax environmental regulations and corrupt politicians. You’ve been convinced by the oil industry that the technology is deeply coupled with how power is generated and that it’s at fault ultimately. Obviously, look away from the constant bribes that are killing renewable projects, it’s the fault of software. Not the software you like and use everyday like streaming movies and videos though, the new one that the media tells you is bad.
Many of these centers are building or planning to build on-site fossil fuel-driven power plants
Have you tried having a government that can govern?
As part of the proposed standards, future large-scale AI data centres would face mandatory obligations around electricity, water and infrastructure.
Mr Albanese said new facilities would be required to underwrite new electricity generation and pay the full cost of connecting to the grid so households were not left footing the bill.
He said the data centre companies would have to contribute at least as much energy to the grid as they consumed, including both renewables and firming power.
The government would also require the centres to minimise water use and pay for any additional water infrastructure where necessary.
“name one good thing that you can make your machine”
“it can add peanut butter and jelly to bread”
“we had that, it was called a knife”
“yes but this machine works by pouring arsenic into the water supply!”
I dont care about the stolen valor I’m saying this machine did something we could already do slightly faster at a massive social and environmental cost.
“name one good thing that you can make your machine”
“it can make a full 3 course meal in 30 seconds”
“we had that, it was to be a professional chef or someone with hours and days of time”
Do you guys see how eye roll worthy your replies are to anyone who uses it?
so far the only counterpoint I’ve really had is a front end for a weather API.
if you were to truly impress me with some AI output, a masterwork which would truly shut me up - what would you pick?
None, I use ai because it helps me, im not here to convince people who appear to live in a chatgpt 3.5 turbo world that ai is useful because it very clearly is
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/07/linus-torvalds-to-critics-of-ai-coding-in-linux-fork-it-or-just-walk-away/
This is like when google came out and I told someone it was amazing and in response they said they prefer dogpile, sure fair enough but to argue technics then we have a difference of opinion
they have played us for absolute fools
deleted by creator
Name one good thing a food processor has made. That’s what you sound like.
Fyi, an AI request is about 1 second of microwave use. I’m guessing you never use a microwave, a minute worth would be more than my daily use of energy with AI.
We’re past the point where you can pretend AI doesn’t have multiple massive negative impacts. Sure, your individual use is not a problem on its own. But the models you used had to be trained. Future models need to be trained. And that cost must also be considered in each of your queries. You’re still participating in normalizing and justifying the existence of AI. All while they extract value from you and others they never got permission from.
Well, I guess we’ll just see who was right in 20 years when we’re overwhelmed by the flood of climate caused migration while at the same time having lost the ability to have any independent thought.
In the end, it’s electricity. The only thing seperating good vs bad AI is a proper grid running around renewable which we need in any case and should have had a decade ago.
It’s also massive hypocrisy. Data centres have been around for a while, no one complains about the cost of running YouTube and Netflix, or the cost of developing CoD and running the servers. One AI query is about 10 seconds of streaming, are you critical about watching tv? Should I calculate the cost of making a movie and remove it from the 10 seconds or do you only use that logic with AI?
You got told to be mad by the media and that’s why you are mad.
Aaaand you entirely missed the point I made.
Ahhh yes, I’m ignoring your point but you aren’t with your trite reply?
I addressed your point. You blame climate change and environmental damage on it while I’m saying that’s on lax environmental regulations and corrupt politicians. You’ve been convinced by the oil industry that the technology is deeply coupled with how power is generated and that it’s at fault ultimately. Obviously, look away from the constant bribes that are killing renewable projects, it’s the fault of software. Not the software you like and use everyday like streaming movies and videos though, the new one that the media tells you is bad.
where on the doll did the AI touch you dude…
here: https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/analyzing-air-pollution-health-economic-risks-from-ai-data-centers/
Have you tried having a government that can govern?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-07-15/labor-to-set-standards-for-ai-data-centres-and-copyright/106918380
ps. I don’t use American AI, I use Mistral which is French and Lumo/Scaleway which are European