Animal farming is a far greater user of resources by far and is a top 3 contributor to breaching every planetary boundary.

It also has an easily replaceable alternative that would reduce farmland use by 50% , massively reduce water use, eliminate one of the top contributor to climate change, and at little to no cost.

A glass of cow’s milk costs weeks worth of the average AI user’s resource usage.

So you’re right that we have far better options to tackle before we even start worrying about AI.

AI does have a particularly high local impact, due to concentrating so much of the world’s AI energy use into the land on which the data center is located, so that is a real issue to be dealt with, but that’s largely a regulatory and management issue.

> Now do Netflix and YouTube! How about golf courses, almond farming, and Disneyworld?

these are bad examples, because it would be good if they were all gone, except almond farming in areas naturally hospitable to almonds.

Golf is largely self-regulating though; there is not a huge quantity of VC money going into golf courses. As more people find golf boring, there are fewer golf courses because the economics of running a failing golf course vs. selling to developers are too obvious.

Golf courses are not booking revenue by exchanging shares in themselves to other golf courses in exchange for golf balls that have not been manufactured yet.

There is a point where this kind of a pragmatic/contrarian take doesn't stick anymore. Is the net benefit of AI worth the cost of losing natural resources for billions? That's the question you're supposed to ponder, like, it's actually up in the air and not clear cut?

Netflix and YouTube probably are orders of magnitude less than the alternative of driving to plays and movie theaters. Most golf courses use recycled water, albeit the opportunity cost is real. Almond farming is fair.

X is terrible, so don’t address Y is an awful way of framing any issue.

> if you're only looking at the downside then you're being dishonest. (...) "Is the net benefit worth the cost?"

Is any benefit worth the cost of killing the world? The article proposes a series of recommendations for investors in the "roadmap for sustainability and equity", because the conversation isn't if the benefits of AI are worth the costs, but if we are able to pay these costs at all plan the required infrastructure improvements -- which are always done with taxpayer money regardless of how neoliberal the society claims to be -- in order to accommodate the expansion of AI without massive disruptions.

Okay, but this summary of the UN report is emphatically not "only looking at the downside". From the piece:

"“This report is not a case against artificial intelligence, a technological transformation that is improving the lives of billions of people around the world,” said Professor Kaveh Madani, Director of UNU-INWEH who led the investigation team. “It is a call for using it responsibly and addressing its unintended impacts proactively to make it sustainable and equitable.”"

It is impossible to judge of the net benefit is worth the cost if you don't know the cost. More specifically, "The report finds that AI’s environmental cost is being systematically mismeasured."

Its key policy messages even include: "AI within planetary limits is achievable. The report’s central argument is constructive. Capability and stewardship can grow together, but only with measurement, transparency, and shared responsibility across the ecosystem."

You can also see it's not anti-AI by how it argues, for example: "Governments should integrate AI infrastructure into energy planning, water governance, and land-use permitting, and require standardized environmental footprint reporting."

The report itself praises AI even more, calling it "a defining technology of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, moving societies beyond digitization toward the optimization and automation of complex systems", along with an overview of its transformational benefits.

this is a poor argument

there have been plenty of articles about golf courses being a threat to water sources; just because golf courses haven't been closed doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about the threat posed by AI. You're still free to crusade against golf courses if you like.

>Now do Netflix and YouTube! How about golf courses, almond farming, and Disneyworld?

Don't threaten my communist soul with a good time.

>Everything has a downside attached.

Yes. Let's regulate that, please.

>The point is never "Let's stop this because it's bad for the planet", but "Is the net benefit worth the cost?"

Sure. The answer is 'no, it isn't '. These frontier models purposefully chose the most power guzzling, moat digging approach and it was not necessary whatsoever.

> but there are things we ought to stop doing long before we come for AI.

Sure, let's get to it. As well as with AI at the same time.

My son does this. Points out all the issues in the world that I didn't address when I point something he's done. It's a childlike response insisting that either we talk about everything or nothing.

Weird take.

> That could still be a no for AI, but there are things we ought to stop doing long before we come for AI.

Hard to have that discussion if these are the responses.

How about instead of sewing FUD and justifying one evil by pointing at others, we actually gave a damn about the world we’re creating.

People act like doing things that are good for the environment is inherently lacking in economic value. My Dad’s environmental consulting business put me through college, while doing good things for the environment and people, and that is really small scale stuff. And his primary customer was a bank wishing to avoid lending on contaminated sites.

There could absolutely be massive money to be made in doing good things for the environment, it is the people making money doing bad things for the environment who do their damndest to keep grasp on the wheel and subvert any attempt to make doing good things for the environment economically advantageous.

These people are virtually selling their children’s future for a few extra bucks today. The earth is going to be around for a long time yet. We should care about our children, grandchildren and so on.