Trump will put way more innocent lives at risk, so you are doing exactly what you're saying tou would never do by putting your vote for Biden on the table.
I think that's too convenient and loaded an explanation. I suspect a better one can be found in social identity theory, with positions like these being social markers that they use to establish firm boundaries around their in-group. Every group tends to develop social markers, things you're expected to believe or otherwise exhibit to show that you're "on their side." There may be some particular reason why any given marker first shows up, but once it gets adopted it becomes essentially self-perpetuating.
They're rolling it out gradually, as is customary for routine updates.
I'm not sure why this is worthy of a headline, frankly. This is how Microsoft typically does these things. I guess it's the "...with AI involved somehow!" Bit in the title that makes it interesting? I expect that's going to get old fairly quickly.
That's not the comment I was referring to. Here's a direct link, where you said:
I think it’s reasonable for a mob to destroy one of the many self-driving cars that have been pissing off San Francisco residents for a very long time now when it tries to drive into them during a big celebration where cars weren’t even supposed to be. Who got hurt here? Waymo? Fuck Waymo.
You literally asked for that. What a wonderful catch-22 you set up; if nobody responded with the evidence you demanded you could claim people were lying about you, and if they provided it you can claim they're launching personal attacks.
Rereading that previous thread, I see you were quick to accuse me of issuing personal attacks there too. Seems to be a common theme.
Anyway. Is there anything more to discuss here about the actual topic of this thread, the energy usage of ChatGPT?
Where did I make a personal attack? The comment where you explicitly asked for examples of you being anti-AI?
And you're slinging personal attacks against both of us, so if "holding people to different standards" is such a big deal, well...
I didn't ask because it didn't matter. I wasn't present, I have no idea what you guys were arguing about and I don't care. The point is that you suddenly brought that argument in here, where it's a complete non-sequitur and not relevant to the subject at hand. And you're certainly not being civil about it.
That is a scurrilous misrepresentation of what I said I said and has nothing to do with AI. Irrelevant and ironic for someone who criticized me for making personal attacks.
You... you literally asked for this. Your previous commented ended with "Please demonstrate that to be true." You asked for it to be demonstrated, so I demonstrated, and now you're angry that I did so.
Last week you were advocating in favor of mobs burning self-driving cars if they were "pissed off" by them. You banned AI-generated art from the @tenforward community you mod. You seem pretty firmly anti-AI to me.
OpenAI is a global service. People all over the world are using it and doing a massive amount of work with it. According to this page there are 180.5 million users and openai.com got 1.6 billion visits in December last year. It is extremely modest on that scale.
You need to account for what's being done with resources when trying to judge whether the resources are excessive.
Not to mention that increasing usage of AI means AI is producing more useful work in the process, too.
The people running these AIs are paying for the electricity they're using. If the AI isn't doing enough work to make it worth that expense they wouldn't be running them. If the general goal is "reduce electricity usage" then there's no need to target AI, or any other specific use for that matter. Just make electricity in general cost more, and usage will go down. It's basic market forces.
I suspect that most people raging about AIs wouldn't want their energy bill to shoot up, though. They want everyone else to pay for their preferences.
Hey now. Rule one of this community is "Be civil - Attack the argument, not the person." What does any of this genocide stuff have to do with the argument being discussed here?
Trump will put way more innocent lives at risk, so you are doing exactly what you're saying tou would never do by putting your vote for Biden on the table.
That's what's funny.