I think it's incredibly obvious how it connects to his "argument" - nothing he complains about is specific to GenAI. So dressing up his hatred of the technology in vague environmental concerns is laughably transparent.

He and everyone who agrees with his post simply don't like generative AI and don't actually care about "recyclable data centers" or the rape of the natural world. Those concerns are just cudgels to be wielded against a vague threatening enemy when convenient, and completely ignored when discussing the technologies they work on and like

Someone else in the thread posted this article earlier.

https://nationalcentreforai.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2025/05/02/ar...

It seems video streaming, like Youtube which is owned by Google, uses much more energy than generative AI.

I think that criticizing when it benefits the person criticizing, and absense of criticism when criticism would hurt the person criticizing, makes the argument less persuasive.

This isn't ad hom, it's a heuristic for weighting arguments. It doesn't prove whether an argument has merit or not, but if I have hundreds of arguments to think about, it helps organizing them.

It is the same energy as the "you criticize society, yet you participate in society" meme. Catching someone out on their "hypocrisy" when they hit a limit of what they'll tolerate is really a low-effort "gotcha".

And it probably isn't astroturf, way too many people just think this way.

being inside the machine doesn’t exempt you from tradeoff analysis, kind sir

Do you really think that the only reason people would be turned off by this post by Rob Pike is that they are being paid by big AI?

This is the most astro-turfy comment ITT