Many opponents to AI do not view the tech as having a net benefit. Comparing it to food production would serve to make you look more the fool to them despite their claims about water consumption frequently being wacky.
And then there's the matter of Saudis coaxing farmers to grow alfalfa which is then exported to Saudi Arabia to feed cows there (!).
California grows 80% of the world's almonds. Every other place that grows almonds is practically a rounding error in the number of almonds out there.
Almonds are fucking delicious and nutritious. They sell themselves.
Since the American almonds are also produced at a much larger scale, they can also underprice the locally produced almonds ridiculously, which further disincentivizes local farmers from growing almonds and forces them to grow something else.
You grow what fits your climate, almonds grow very well in California.
If you want an egregious example, alfalfa in Arizona, especially when you know it's irrigated by flooding the field
https://apnews.com/article/saudi-arabia-drought-arizona-alfa...
And let's not forget many of the remaining independent websites on the Internet closing up shop due to being unable to afford the substantial increase in hosting costs resulting from aggressive scrapers getting data to keep training AI on.
Or the massive improvement in bots and click-fraud due to AI, pushing an increasing number of companies to embrace heinous practices such as mandatory facial recognition for users to be allowed to engage in socialization.
Or the increased electricity prices already realized around much of the country due to AI both so much of the existing grid's supply and requiring expensive upgrades to the infrastructure - the latter of which is frequently paid for by taxpayers.
All for the wondrous promises of unproven future capabilities.
The real mystery to me is how it's a mystery to so many people why there's a large and enduring anti-AI sentiment.