this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2025
1628 points (99.2% liked)
Fuck AI
4980 readers
2120 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
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
As opposed to your vibes?
As opposed to the many reputable news sources and scientific publications that run contrary?
I mean, I'm certain that if you consider there to be many reputable scientific publications having studies to the contrary, you should at least be able to post a single one, right?
Sure. Here is a decent one:
Environment and sustainability development: A ChatGPT perspective
Priyanka Bhaskar, Neha Seth
Applied Data Science and Smart Systems, 54-62, 2024
Point is finding it or the dozens like it take like 2 seconds on Google scholar.
Great!
Now, where in the paper did you find the primary claims about water consumption?
(There are none. You didn't read the paper)
Well, I suppose one of us didn't. XD
Or at least couldn't make it to section V. They mentioned the common claim, for instance, that GPT 3 alone took three quarters of a million gallons of water to train (roughly the footprint of 3-400) cars.
But, please, keep congratulating yourself. I was selection based on the criteria of (1) easy to read (2) multiple environmental issues listed.
Once again, they make no primary claims. All they do is cite other papers.
if you can refute it please do.
don't talk about it, do it.
Fuck man, read one of the myriad of studies. Not some blog blog post. XD
When it comes to ludicrous and bullshit "evidence" you don't get to challenge the world to refute something.
normally that would be a sensible tact.
Yet, you came here to say "As opposed to the many reputable news sources and scientific publications that run contrary?"
with not even a cunthair of evidence for those contrary points. "nuh uh you should search I'm right but can't be fucked to give a shred of evidence"
you fucking fuckheads
I'm 4 pages into a paper on the subject. Want something on air pollution, check out grok in Memphis. Something about water table distruction, check the rural New York one.
If you want me to cite something obscure like some strangeness between weak and strong NP-Completeness? Sure. That makes sense.
If someone wants me to cite a source regarding whether prime numbers are real I'm just going to tell them to stop being stupid and ask Google.
That is how simple this one is. I have hundreds of citations, both scientific and mass media. They took almost zero effort to find.
I would challenge you to avoid being lazy and stupid.
am intimately familiar with the shitshow in Memphis.
searching new york data center water table destruction gives some links to stories related to datacenter water use but nothing specific to NY or AI. duckduckgo and google (non ai) searched.
I would challenge your assumptions but you're just an asshole. Have a great life.
You sound hangry. Perhaps a Snickers?