775
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2026
775 points (100.0% liked)
Programmer Humor
32883 readers
213 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes, it is the people who are against the corporate AI offerings who are guilty of groupthink, not me!
To be fair, there are local agentic models.
I dont think local agentic models address the ethical and environmental concerns I have with the training - but its better than the corporate offerings :)
Hey guy/gal/genderfluid pal, the cat is out of the bag. Either we embrace it for what it can do in a much more sustainable way, or we let corpos redefine sustainable.
Is this a good use case? No. But most use cases, I’d rather have a local agent running on my own hardware being offset by solar, than using a corpo offering.
Please don't call me man :)
The cat is "out of the bag" on consuming meat and dairy, plenty of people manage to survive and thrive without em, without much effort at all. I'd personally rather use no LLM than use a local agentic model with poor ethics/environmental impact of its training, even if the latter is better than corpo offerings.
As I alluded to, I'm much happier to see people using local agentic models. Even more so if they happen to be something like Pleias' approach, with lots of transparency about the data they were trained on. There's still the environmental concerns behind the resources consumed for the training, but it is about as good as one could hope for at this point if one insists on using LLMs.
As you wish, wasn’t meant as a gendered ident so apologies.
I’m actually not familiar with how much environmental damage is done by training vs using. My initial assumption was that training would be less, by many many factors, because it “happens once” while the usage is constant and scales with the number of users. But that is admittedly an assumption made out of ignorance.
And to be clear, I’m not really trying to tell you you’re wrong, just trying to make my position clear since Lemmy is very anti AI in general.
There are two big piles of groupthink here.
What a stupid comment
Eh, mine added value to the conversation. Your "what a stupid comment" comment made no such effort. So hey, swings and roundabouts!
No it didn't
Ok bye