441
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] arakhis_@feddit.org 26 points 1 week ago

When the environmentalism memer is being petty about the small issues instead of making the discussion about the big sectors of personal consumption like heating/power source, nutrition and mobility

And yes, AI in creative sectors bad

[-] RideAgainstTheLizard@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 week ago

Whataboutism? Are only certain topics allowed to be discussed? Are memes prohibited to strictly serious and important issues?

[-] arakhis_@feddit.org 9 points 1 week ago

Memeing like this more harmful than helpful for solving the problem due to big sectors very hard to change and therefore people like to shift to other sectors to ignore actual solution

[-] RideAgainstTheLizard@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 week ago

Yes you're right, people are not smart and will lose track of the greater picture if we distract them. Forgive me.

[-] arakhis_@feddit.org 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

.. /s

what a coincidence that media in ie mobility is all about electric cars vs cars instead of the other actual solutions to then point at little kid with public transport written on demo sign with laughter as subtext

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago

Also who's to say the person isn't running the AI model locally off of renewable energy?

You don't have to use a centralized service, shit like ComfyUI exist

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Shanmugha@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Looool:)) Remind me, who produces most plastic in the world? Or most CO2? Or dumps largest amount of heat in the air?

Surely, some random John Does of some nation, right?

[-] arakhis_@feddit.org 4 points 1 week ago

Surely, some random John Does of some nation, right?

im not sure what youre implying with the last part, ill ignore it as long as its unclear

Remind me, who produces most plastic in the world? Or most CO2? Or dumps largest amount of heat in the air?

What a peer reviewed study across 168 countries named "Keeping the global consumption within the planetary boundaries by Peipei Tian et al. Nature magazine." found was commented in an article about it:

The richest 1% of the world’s population produces 50 times more greenhouse gasses than the 4 billion people in the bottom 50%. BUT if the world’s top 20% of consumers shifted their consumption habits, they could reduce their environmental impact by 25 to 53%. (550€/month in Europe is richest 15.2%)

(..)The study also shows that changing consumption patterns in just the food and services sectors could help bring critical planetary boundaries back within safe limits. And just last month, Hubacek co-authored a paper describing how the livestock sector is dangerously transgressing several of the planetary boundaries (..)

Its a problem with more than one scapegoat. Of course big corporations create the goods, but theres also a demand by 8 billion people for example to just highlight one

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Frjttr@lemm.ee 23 points 1 week ago

I mean, iOS produces them on-device 😂

[-] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 14 points 1 week ago

And how much CO2 was produced training the AI that was put on your device? How many slaves spent how many hours generating data to train that AI? How many slaves cut down how many forests to extract the materials that how many slaves turned into the chips that ran the training process?

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago

And how much CO2 was produced training the AI that was put on your device?

I mean, fuck Apple and fuck AI. But at some point "I noticed your picture was rendered with software that uses electricity that may have come from a fossil fuel power source, so I'm going to disregard environmentalism carte blanche" is just reactionary anti-environmentalist rhetoric couched in smug liberalist language.

[-] Voyajer@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago

If only he didn't generate that image! I can't believe he made Apple generate that whole model!

[-] Rooskie91@discuss.online 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Focusing climate change on individual contribution alienates people from the movement. Instead of wasting your energy making one person feel bad, maybe focus on the corporations that are actually responsible for producing that CO2 and cutting down those forests while hiding that reality from the consumer.

[-] Frjttr@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago

I’m unsure about that. But seeing how stupid it is, and knowing that Apple produces green energy through Apple Energy LLC, I suspect not enough CO2 was produced 😂 /s

[-] null@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 week ago

I actually don't know, how much was it?

[-] Beastimus@slrpnk.net 19 points 1 week ago

Ok, here's my perspective. I hate Gen-AI (specifically and solely the generative kind), I think in nearly 100% of its use cases there are more effective and more ethical solutions. Its really sketchy to me for any artist to be using or supporting AI with/in their work. My understanding is that while training the AI does take significant server farm work (on a similar scale to like, storing the data for streaming video), the actual AI model produced is relatively small, and therefore doesn't take that much energy to run. So, good on them for doing environmental work, my hangups will entirely be on the ethical side of their AI usage.

[-] scrion@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

I'm with you on more ethical solutions being available, but efficient? In turns of total energy usage required to go from (often unethically acquired) training data to a manifestation of a prompt as an image, maybe.

But regarding the effort and efficiency when purely generating an image? I think not.

There is a person on Lemmy running GenAI models locally (on their own machines) using solar power, and honestly, that's totally fine by me. I'm also fine with a DM generating some art for their next hombrew game they run with a couple of friends.

Acquisition of training data and the environmental impact of data centers (not only for AI usage) are still problems to be solved, though.

[-] Beastimus@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Ok, I didn't say efficient, I said effective. I said AI images are less effective than manually created ones, and I stand by that. Honestly, if that guy is sourcing his data ethically, more power to him.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Ilixtze@lemm.ee 10 points 1 week ago

For me the problem with AI generated thumbnails in any environmental or scientific blog is that it makes me doubt the whole text might be a AI Hallucination and I just immediately click out.

AI images just kill all credibility for me.

[-] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago

It goes double if they're using generated infographics with garbled text. There was clearly zero proofreading, and that absolutely means the article wasn't fact checked either.

The bar is so low, it's underground, and they're still tripping over it.

[-] JandroDelSol@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

Honestly, any blog claining to be informative qhile usung AI thumbnails makes me extremely wary. If they can't even find a stock photo, who's to say they did any research, or worse, just wrote the entire article with gen ai

[-] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2025
441 points (100.0% liked)

solarpunk memes

3765 readers
1008 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS