My Crustacean in Christ, I am doing that promised Luddite deep dive as we speak, & I'm finding out some really interesting shit. Watch this space. Thank you for this excellent rant
"Generative AI is uniquely polluting. Masley’s claim that Chat-GPT isn’t bad for the environment isn’t a calculus of harm, more a declaration of conformity saying: The damage isn’t that bad when you compare it to the damage that’s already going on. In a way, those kinds of essays are initiation processes—welcoming Generative AI into the apathetic norm of feigning environmental ignorance." I mostly disagree with this framing (obviously, I guess) partly because I think AI adds a lot of positive value relative to its individually very small emissions. I wrote about this here a bit (https://andymasley.substack.com/i/172277098/clarifying-some-of-my-beliefs-on-these-questions) but I expect that AI will on net probably be good for the climate, not bad for it, so I don't see myself as trying to normalize something bad for the climate. Separately, even if I thought AI were entirely bad, I don't think how new something is should have much bearing on how we react to it for climate reasons. Cars and meat are old, but they're both environmental catastrophes, and I'd rather people spend all their time thinking about how to reduce them. Whether AI is being "normalized" or not doesn't trouble me nearly as much as the fact that gas powered cars are still driving around or pigs are being tortured in factory farms (or that cows are emitting a lot).
Hey Andy, I apologise, I meant to write "Generative AI *isn't* uniquely polluting", it's a long piece so a typo or 6 is inevitable but I'm not sure how much bearing that correction has on your response. I respect your clarifications, I hope that the potential you state (how it may be used to combat climate science) outweighs its material impact (the environmental impact of its literal existence as it likely undergoes rapid expansion).
"Separately, even if I thought AI were entirely bad, I don't think how new something is should have much bearing on how we react to it for climate reasons."
This mentality speaks directly to my overarching point of the nature section, which is that there's a tacit, cultural acceptance of environmental harm in the name of technological progress, which strikes me as an extractive and fundamentally backwards way to approach innovation.
The whole point of me listing all the climate disasters was to illustrate we cannot afford to have technological advancements that overlook their effects on the climate, even if they're small by comparison to the more vast polluters. If AI "pays for itself" environmentally, that's great, but it's existence has already facilitated the harmed of people RE: Elon Musk Data Centres in Memphis. We agree, the bigger perpetrators–Cars, fossil fuels, meat farming–all need to be addressed. Perhaps its better to say that my point is not about AI as much as it is about the overall cultural attitude and how AI fits into it.
My Crustacean in Christ, I am doing that promised Luddite deep dive as we speak, & I'm finding out some really interesting shit. Watch this space. Thank you for this excellent rant
Thank you for reading!!
"Generative AI is uniquely polluting. Masley’s claim that Chat-GPT isn’t bad for the environment isn’t a calculus of harm, more a declaration of conformity saying: The damage isn’t that bad when you compare it to the damage that’s already going on. In a way, those kinds of essays are initiation processes—welcoming Generative AI into the apathetic norm of feigning environmental ignorance." I mostly disagree with this framing (obviously, I guess) partly because I think AI adds a lot of positive value relative to its individually very small emissions. I wrote about this here a bit (https://andymasley.substack.com/i/172277098/clarifying-some-of-my-beliefs-on-these-questions) but I expect that AI will on net probably be good for the climate, not bad for it, so I don't see myself as trying to normalize something bad for the climate. Separately, even if I thought AI were entirely bad, I don't think how new something is should have much bearing on how we react to it for climate reasons. Cars and meat are old, but they're both environmental catastrophes, and I'd rather people spend all their time thinking about how to reduce them. Whether AI is being "normalized" or not doesn't trouble me nearly as much as the fact that gas powered cars are still driving around or pigs are being tortured in factory farms (or that cows are emitting a lot).
Hey Andy, I apologise, I meant to write "Generative AI *isn't* uniquely polluting", it's a long piece so a typo or 6 is inevitable but I'm not sure how much bearing that correction has on your response. I respect your clarifications, I hope that the potential you state (how it may be used to combat climate science) outweighs its material impact (the environmental impact of its literal existence as it likely undergoes rapid expansion).
"Separately, even if I thought AI were entirely bad, I don't think how new something is should have much bearing on how we react to it for climate reasons."
This mentality speaks directly to my overarching point of the nature section, which is that there's a tacit, cultural acceptance of environmental harm in the name of technological progress, which strikes me as an extractive and fundamentally backwards way to approach innovation.
The whole point of me listing all the climate disasters was to illustrate we cannot afford to have technological advancements that overlook their effects on the climate, even if they're small by comparison to the more vast polluters. If AI "pays for itself" environmentally, that's great, but it's existence has already facilitated the harmed of people RE: Elon Musk Data Centres in Memphis. We agree, the bigger perpetrators–Cars, fossil fuels, meat farming–all need to be addressed. Perhaps its better to say that my point is not about AI as much as it is about the overall cultural attitude and how AI fits into it.
All good, sorry didn't mean to run too far with the typo. Will have a few more posts soon relevant to this, appreciate the back and forth!
No worries at all, thanks for sharing your thoughts!