It’s more like a false dilemma, claiming we can only focus on or solve one or the other. Our largest focus should be the largest polluters as mentioned, but it’s also ok to want to challenge the use of AI in messaging about social action.
I’m not trying to detract from AI’s issues, or insist that we can only address one issue at a time. However, if I was given $100 Million to address these issues, I’d be investing 99 millon into dealing with water, land, and mining related issues, as those can have immediate effects. Emissions are such a hard one to address, since it requires buy in from literally everyone (look how hard that was with COVID, and people were dying right there and then due to it). Regulating and reducing AI emissions seems a lower priorty to me compared to things like better O&G regulation which are likely to have larger impacts on overall emssions.
I don’t disagree with you. I said fighting pollution should be the number one priority. That should in fact take all the money. But it’s also possible to call out a journalist or publisher or activist in their comments or social media or with an email or whatever if you want to challenge their use of AI. I never said we should spend a bunch of money on what I think is just a personal action, which is why I think it’s a false dilemma.
It’s more like a false dilemma, claiming we can only focus on or solve one or the other. Our largest focus should be the largest polluters as mentioned, but it’s also ok to want to challenge the use of AI in messaging about social action.
Some people seem to think we can only operate as a hivemind
I disagree with you, and @[email protected] - respectfully.
I’m not trying to detract from AI’s issues, or insist that we can only address one issue at a time. However, if I was given $100 Million to address these issues, I’d be investing 99 millon into dealing with water, land, and mining related issues, as those can have immediate effects. Emissions are such a hard one to address, since it requires buy in from literally everyone (look how hard that was with COVID, and people were dying right there and then due to it). Regulating and reducing AI emissions seems a lower priorty to me compared to things like better O&G regulation which are likely to have larger impacts on overall emssions.
I don’t disagree with you. I said fighting pollution should be the number one priority. That should in fact take all the money. But it’s also possible to call out a journalist or publisher or activist in their comments or social media or with an email or whatever if you want to challenge their use of AI. I never said we should spend a bunch of money on what I think is just a personal action, which is why I think it’s a false dilemma.
How has this got anything to do with a meme community that makes memes?
It’s not an issue of focus, but cohesion and messaging. Focusing on internal moral purity alienates people and divides us against the larger enemy.
You are in favour of purity of focus
You again🤺
Is focus not rival?