84
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 18 Aug 2026
84 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
35151 readers
80 users here now
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
No, its worse.
When you steal human created art off the internet you aren't actively harming the environment. You arguably dont even harm the artist because you would never pay them anyway.
When you use an ai image generator, you are actively harming the environment, and actively harming artists by supporting tools that are trained on their art without consent.
Just use the human art, or something like picrew where people make things specifically for folks to use to make their characters for stuff like vtt
I find the environmental argument is always a weak one to make, though. CO2 emissions for non-AI datacenters peaks currently around 210 million tons, with AI datacenters peaking currently around 100 million tons.
So why is more pollution from subject A acceptable, but less from subject B isn't? I've seen people say because A gives "something of worth", but then that just undermines the whole point of being harmful to the environment. Destruction of the environment is kinda an absolute in that instance, the source shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether or not we accept it.
The same for the water usage thing (which was debunked). AI datacenters use 68 billions gallons annually (at least by 2028 projected). People are upset about that, but not about the 26 trillion gallons that US agriculture uses. All because "something of worth", but if it's that big of a deal why are people focusing on less than 1% of the total consumption? How is that 1% needing protected but the remaining 99% totally disposable?
I contain multitudes. I can protest the mass growth of datacentres for other industries as well as for AI.
I hadn't mentioned water usage, but since you bring it up, AI datacentres are being plopped down willy nilly and sucking up all the water from their local area, causing drought. Thats one stark difference between it and agriculture, which isn't having the same kind of local effect.
However, the US (and other) agriculture+ industry (again, I contain multitudes) doesn't get a pass. Estimates vary, but it looks like about 30-50% of US agriculture water usage goes to feed which is destined for livestock for the meat industry. I'd say that a person can be both against AI and an outspoken vegan against the meat industry, wouldn't you?
AI datacenters do not cause drought. There is no evidence to support that claim. And if you think you do have evidence, I would love to see the source.
And you totally can contain multitudes. People should be like that. But they in practice aren't. They follow what is trending. For example, if you look through your comment history how many comments will be pertaining to the US meat industry? How many to datacenters?
I would argue that you care a great deal more about one than the other. Which, going back to my original point, why is that 1% more important than the remaining 99% (or specifically the 50% that you care so much about)?
I don't have evidence on hand, but I have read compelling scholarly articles previously on the matter. Feel free to disregard this discussion point if that's a dealbreaker.
Your argument would be incorrect, as I have been vegetarian for over 2 decades and vegan for the last 5 years. I've just found that trying to sway people online about the meat industry is a fool's errand, whereas I have had decent success in having constructive conversations about the harms of AI. My meat industry related efforts are focused primarily on face to face interactions.
My stance on AI isn't based on what's "trending", except for the fact that it, as a pretty existential threat in its current trajectory of resource usage, job displacement, and market "growth", is rapidly starting to infest every aspect of my life. So yes, the trend that AI is following is causing my stance on it to be pertinent to a growing number of conversations.
I'm curious though, what would I have to be doing for you to believe that I'm... I dont know, "allowed"? to talk about AI's water usage impact?
I would say you are starting to approach an opposing view as treating yours as "wrong thought" when confronted. That is an absolutest method that is only ever used to justify what you think is right and vilify all else. It isn't a matter of what is "allowed". There is no restriction to that. But if you put out an idea or belief that can be deconstructed and proven incorrect/incomplete, then people have the right to speak against it.
There are lots of points you can make that are completely valid and evidentiary by nature, but AI water usage isn't one of them. It has been debunked to point that I would bucket it into the same group that "vaccines cause autism" fit into.
EDIT: Actually I wanted to point out something about the trending mention. You say you don't try to sway opinion on the meat industry but you do for AI because you get more traction. That's called audience alignment and is part of shared identity signaling (used algorithmically to define what is currently trending).
Before AI, people had been advocating against the meat industry, and had pushed for reduced water usage in agriculture and homes, which led to stricter rules against lawns in drought-prone areas. It being drowned out by the advocacy against AI doesn't mean those voices disappeared, just that there are louder voices now.
I do enjoy the classic "they're doing bad so I can too" fallacy, though.
"they're doing bad so I can too"
I don't think you understand that the "so I can" part implies you. By virtue of even posting, YOU are pushing datacenter demand. These comments don't just live in the ether. The whole point is you are cherry picking what you are upset about based on what is trending (as you even mentioned). The point being you are MORE upset about the lesser evil, not that one is justified evil and the other isn't.
If you enjoy the Two Wrongs Make Right fallacy, then I think you'll love the Special Pleading fallacy.
I write software for a living. There's an enormous difference between a text-based service that functionally runs as a primitive CRUD and a compute-heavy service like LLM inferencing. The latter runs on servers that individually consume multiple kilowatts while the former can run on a raspberry pi but gains efficiency by sharing a server that consumes maybe 1kW with dozens of other people. Heck, Lemmy doesn't even need to do video transcoding like all the toxic social media sites do.
No, people are upset about all the evils. Being more or less upset about one or the other is irrelevant. You're just choosing to cherry pick one thing that everyone who's upset should ignore.
Can run on a raspberry pi and does run on a raspberry pi are two different things. I don't think raspberry pis are the solution here. I'm not cherry picking either as both are clear evils. That is the point. Current non-AI datacenters are using more power in total than AI datacenters. That may (and likely will) change, but the argument that AI datacenters are destroying the environment when the other is destroying it even more (but let's ignore that one) is moronic by nature.
That by definition isn't cherry picking. It's pointing out the logical fallacy in popular thought.
I work in devops. These two things are more alike then you think.
Current non-AI datacenters run all of every other service on the internet.
Current AI datacenters run one class of services.
This is like comparing totals vs per capita.
Ok, so despite everything you said, it is NOT the environmental impact that matters. What matters (at least now) is the number of services it provides. I hate to say it but "You're just choosing to cherry pick one thing that everyone who's upset should ignore."
This is gonna sound like a broken record here but... https://kbin.earth/m/gaming@beehaw.org/t/3103626/ChatGPT-LLMs-and-Automating-the-Fun-Out-of-Roleplaying-Don-t/comment/14132956#entry-comment-14132956
Let's be real here: If subject A destroys the environment and subject B destroys the environment to the same degree, why is the quality/quantity of service provided by either the deciding factor to you when you yourself have stated this is a matter of environmental concern? The outcome being the exact same, the path you take to it is irrelevant. That is the most illogical reason to be ok with anything. And this isn't me putting words in your mouth, this is literally what you have stated in your comment history.
I'm confused, it seems we agree with eachother - did you mean to reply to the person I replied to, or were you just adding on to my point? :D
Just adding to your comment lol.
I'm hesitant to jump in here, seeing how far off the rails this went, but AI Data Centers have a plethora of problems. Potable water depletion (The Dalles, OR, USA), Exhaust (Boxtown near Memphis, TN, USA), Noise and lowering water tables (Sydney, Australia). The issues they present over "old school" data centers are amplified because of the speed they arise in communities, resources they use, and power (as in influence) disparities that are part of the package.
They are being built rapidly, with little oversight or research, and suck up enormous resources that "old school" data centers did not. Toss in the ethical concerns as wide ranging as stealing art styles to destroying books; to be normative, that tends to piss people off.
To get us back on rails, all of that contributes to me using theater of the mind rather than Gemini to draw me a portrait for goblin Yipyip in my campaigns.
I find the electric usage one to be strong. If you have a lot of data centers near, your electric will go up.
Similarly, if you have a data center near you, your water bill will go up, and your well may dry up.
Data centers are demanding incentives from governments across the country with promises of lots of jobs, but they just need the people to supplement their low usage of utilities.
That is a valid point, I think. That isn't "but what about the environment" but only when convenient. That is local pricing issue which has a very direct and very trackable impact.
If a datacenter opens next door to you, the utility consumption goes up meaning your bill goes up. Unless the datacenter operators are somehow offsetting that increase financially (and that the money is actually be allocated by the city for that purpose), then there is the real impact of datacenters.
I completely agree.
Also you could write down the artist's name and that way there's at least the possibility that someone might commission them or purchase art if they like the style.
Absolutely