Some parts of the anti-AI movement are becoming so unhinged that now any use of compute is considered an environmental threat. This degrowth mentality needs to die.
We are probably on the brink of very bad consequences for a signification fraction of all humans (up to and including all of them, to some extent), which is a huge problem that needs to be addressed.
But what do you gain by incorrectly labeling that as "extinction"? Because you do definitely lose credibility for it, similarly to everybody using hyperbolic language such as "boiling the oceans" etc.
Well then at some point you need to stop growing.
Are they against washing machines too? Or are they just grandfathered in?
The emissions per kWh of energy used in providing internet downloads probably is similar to that per kWh of energy used for washing clothes.
Yes, and it's none of your business how other people spend their electricity.
Until that's resolved, I don't wish that debt incurred for frivolous uses.
Instead of trying to control other people, why can't you start with yourself? Throw away your phone/computer. Go live in a small hut. Practice what you preach.
You may pay for it, but I and the rest of the planet incur the cost.
I can go live the life of a hermit and the above will still be true.
Your electricity use puts more pollution into our air. It burns our forests. It kills species we all depend on.
No man is an island. Your actions affect others. Just paying your indulgences does not make that basic fact away.
You pay for a portion of it, in money.
The other portion of it is belched up into the atmosphere for future generations to pay.
You are incurring debt and forcing it upon others.
You seem to have no problem whatsoever with using electricity yourself. So when do you get to tell me (or anyone else) how to live? And when does it stop? Btw, this is all bizarrely dramatic since we were talking about small local models anyway.
>future generations
Yeah, and some will also say (using the same arguments) that having children is harmful to the planet and we need "measures" to limit that too.
That does not follow logically for me. As humans we disagree about many things, but we generally agree that things that we do often affect others, so one way or another, we need to come together and decide which things are agreed to be acceptable and which things are not.
It's never a binary thing. "Is using energy good or bad?" is a stupid question which can only provide stupid answers. It has to be placed in the context of whether it's proportionate to benefit.
Things which burn a lot of energy for little benefit - and in the case of AI, often negative benefit - end up more towards the "bad".
I hadn't considered that societies rightfully impose standards on these things.
I consider it too early to judge the cost-benefit, but it's fair that others might have already evaluated that. I rescind my comment.
The oceans are boiling [0], marine life is dying [1]. Land close to the water will be land under water soon [2]. The ice caps are melting and setting free all sorts of diseases. [3]
Large parts of our planet on fire all the time now, here's one from Australia from this year [4], but I'm sure you've read about wildfires in Australia last year, California every year, Greece last year etc etc.
What you're proposing is nothing short of a death cult. It's either degrowth or we all die, sacrificed at the altar of capitalism.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/09/profound...
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-026-03013-5
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02299-w
[3] https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/could-microbes-l...
[4] https://phys.org/news/2026-01-australia-declares-state-disas...?
I mean this should (and is) be tackled at the source: 0/low emission energy generation and not consumer having to think about these decisions. Sustainable data centers using renewables etc. But not that the companies should associate/evaluate/consider bytes downloaded with environmental impact.
Until we're at that point though, the 'winners' in this market society (that wield unimaginable amounts of money = resources) such as Google could certainly think about consequences of their choices. And they usually do to some extent, I'm not saying they don't, just that electric supply and demand has two sides to it
Consumers vote and advocate for what they want and don't want. There are many who say it's not an individual problem and should be dealt with broadly through regulation, then also oppose any attempts at regulation.
Me, individually not doing something is gonna absolutely be drowned out by the scale of many other people not thinking of it or being incentivized against it.
This is a systemic issue. A systemic issue needs a systemic solution, not a blame shift to the individual.
We didn't get rid of lead in gas or asbestos in walls by telling people it was bad for them. We did so by banning it.
Technological progress is also societal progress. If we embraced degrowth in the 1800's (there was a ton of pollution back then, and a Malthusian belief in disaster!) we might not see slavery being abolished or women being able to vote.
Will people's lives really be better once they're drowning or choking on wildfire smoke? But hey, at least they had cheap junk!
It's possible to have better lives as well as societal progress without endless growth. Technological progress, too, doesn't have to mean burning our oceans. We just gotta actually think about the costs and consequences of our actions.
Not every technological development is inherently good. Sometimes the cost is not worth the result. I posit the cost of AI so far has been astronomical, higher than anything else in living memory. The results on the other hand have been rather middling.
This is my issue. A cost/benefit analysis, not a strict no to progress.
Not everyone wants this at the cost of others. It's not as simple as that / not a necessary consequence of our desire to find clever solutions to solve everyday inconveniences