I've never felt physically sick from work before, but this is doing it. Imagine you are required to use four different AIs each day to maximize your productivity. Imagine the boss is talking about a, "new era of computing," while having contributed nothing to it. I know we all hate on programmers, but I've never felt such loss of art before. There is no skill, no understanding, and my boss posts his code change history telling me "this is the bar" like a faggot. I will stay at this job through the month at least because money is good and it's giving me a lot of feelings. That at least makes it interesting.
I was talking about the use of "clanker" and "clanker-lover" as future slurs with some friends today and we agreed that while we see it as a joke nowadays, it won't be in the near future. Maybe the term itself doesn't gain any more relevance and stays as an internet inside joke, but the people that fit the clanker lover description are starting to exist and will become more numerous and more annoying as time goes on, to the point where you won't be able to forget they exist when you log off.
I mean I'm good friends with someone who I know is very intelligent in their own right, and they still use ChatGPT for pretty much everything. Ranging from using its help to write university work (which I suspect is a euphemism for the AI writing the whole essay), to using it as a therapist and even to ask it the local weather report, because apparently it's too difficult to understand all the numbers and percentages that you are supposed to interpret, even though we are both in STEM. And yes, I'm sure this person is genuinely intelligent, but I do worry that it will stop being the case if they keep doing this, yet they see nothing wrong with it.
Have you seen a similar scenario play out with people around you, especially since you work in tech? It's not just regular people loosing the capacity for independent thought because they supposedly don't know any better, now those who DO know what will happen to them are still choosing to partake on it anyways.
"clanker" is so stupid because it's obviously nabbed from a past era where physical automation was the pressing issue (assembly lines, factories, etc) as opposed to the digital one that we have now. If you are frustrated with something, the least you can do is characterize it in a relevant manner
fuck memheads fuck wirebrains
Anonymous :
2 days ago :
No.6964
>>6979
>>6964
>Everyone is pretending to suddenly care about industrial water use.
The supremely funny tell with this is that the eco harm is somewhat valid with crypto but less so for AI. The anti-tech left literally ran the same memetic play hoping no one would notice. And for the most part they're right
Both sides of this conversation are converging on the same maximally-reddit asymptote. LLMs are a type of office software that kids use to cheat on homework, and image generators are one-note and easy to identify. Everyone is pretending to suddenly care about industrial water use.
If you quit this job hmu with a referral
Anonymous :
2 days ago :
No.6979
>>7025
>>6979
Was talking about AI with my uncle recently and I halted a bit when he complained about the environmental aspect. Didn't occur to me to compare to crypto, but I immediately thought the carbon footprint of his flying was worse and said as much.
>>6964
Both sides of this conversation are converging on the same maximally-reddit asymptote. LLMs are a type of office software that kids use to cheat on homework, and image generators are one-note and easy to identify. Everyone is pretending to suddenly care about industrial water use.
If you quit this job hmu with a referral
>Everyone is pretending to suddenly care about industrial water use.
The supremely funny tell with this is that the eco harm is somewhat valid with crypto but less so for AI. The anti-tech left literally ran the same memetic play hoping no one would notice. And for the most part they're right
Anonymous :
1 day ago :
No.7025
>>7038
>>7025
>the carbon footprint of his flying was worse
Well the "carbon footprint" of flying comes from the emissions of its engines primarily, whereas the problem with data centers its its water (and power) usage. A data center might not spew as much gas into the air but it might eat up groundwater that isn't replenished. Which is "worse"? A pointless comparison. Weighing negative environmental effects like vegetables on a supermarket scale is idiocy. Both can be bad, and both need to be moderated to a heavy degree.
>>6979
>>6964
>Everyone is pretending to suddenly care about industrial water use.
The supremely funny tell with this is that the eco harm is somewhat valid with crypto but less so for AI. The anti-tech left literally ran the same memetic play hoping no one would notice. And for the most part they're right
Was talking about AI with my uncle recently and I halted a bit when he complained about the environmental aspect. Didn't occur to me to compare to crypto, but I immediately thought the carbon footprint of his flying was worse and said as much.
Anonymous :
1 day ago :
No.7038
>>7041
>>7038
> Weighing negative environmental effects like vegetables on a supermarket scale is idiocy.
You might say idiocy, I would say necessary.
How else can you hope to construct policy? Unless your solution is for us to live like Jains, hovering 2mm above the ground to avoid squashing woodlice.
>>7048>>7038
>Weighing negative environmental effects like vegetables on a supermarket scale is idiocy
Yeah why worry about the "impact" of our actions or if they "work" or "matter" just be a hecking good person and don't think about it
>>7070>>7038
FWIW the context was in regard to individual ChatGPT prompts and they were implying a need to rigidly not do even a single one. They also fly every week. It wasn't about "weighing negative environmental effects like vegetables on a supermarket scale" but rather an obvious orders of magnitude difference scale that struck me as hypocritical. That said, physics and engineering being what they are, you can absolutely get a rudimentary equivalence going between such things and your hostility to that is strange to me.
>>7025
>>6979
Was talking about AI with my uncle recently and I halted a bit when he complained about the environmental aspect. Didn't occur to me to compare to crypto, but I immediately thought the carbon footprint of his flying was worse and said as much.
>the carbon footprint of his flying was worse
Well the "carbon footprint" of flying comes from the emissions of its engines primarily, whereas the problem with data centers its its water (and power) usage. A data center might not spew as much gas into the air but it might eat up groundwater that isn't replenished. Which is "worse"? A pointless comparison. Weighing negative environmental effects like vegetables on a supermarket scale is idiocy. Both can be bad, and both need to be moderated to a heavy degree.
Anonymous :
1 day ago :
No.7041
>>7042
>>7041
"Policy" is the new religion. Americans hated the Soviet Union but have crafted for themselves the same state religion, worship of the bureaucracy. Every single positive possibility of change becomes impossible in the tangled web of institutions, bureaucracy, contracts, laws, networks, market logic, and so on and so on. This "policy" has become the new will power.
Sure, in a practical manner, some things are best handled at the policy level: like land use, which would be a concern for large-scale buildings and development like a data center. Absent of that, a real society would have direct action to fall back on. Ahem. Anyway.
Some things are better informed by cultural and social norms, such as you or your father's choice to board an airplane. We can establish a rule for ourselves to fly less. We don't have to Enact Policy for that to happen, we don't need to literally outlaw all human flight like a Fox news boomer fantasy. We can evade the question of bureaucracy or ~policy~ altogether, and hold ourselves to a higher personal standard, judging whether traveling somewhere is really necessary, and otherwise, consciously taking steps to avoid it. I would want someone to get onto a plane for a funeral of a dear family member, or to go to an academic or professional conference. But, the context of your retort to your father suggest he is using it for repeated and frequent vacations or just to burn savings like many in that demographic.
Now, the average person will look at this and go, but what about the billionaires in their private jets? Why do we have to shoulder the responsibility? And while this isn't quite faulty logic, it gets us nowhere at the end of the day, only sitting around and pouting that things get worse while those other people also aren't changing their habits.
I think the snarky comparison to Jainism is in bad faith. They did not achieve the total ahimsa they imagined to be possible, but they still introduced the idea to millions of their people who proceeded to follow an imperfect, though ultimately effective, form of it. Even the most lax modern Jains will do their best to adhere to the diet and other principles laid down from antiquity. Was that broader, longer-lasting benefit not better than complaining about how individual carbon footprint is a WEF psyop, and throwing our hands up in the air and saying there's no ethical consumption under capitalism?
>>7038
>>7025
>the carbon footprint of his flying was worse
Well the "carbon footprint" of flying comes from the emissions of its engines primarily, whereas the problem with data centers its its water (and power) usage. A data center might not spew as much gas into the air but it might eat up groundwater that isn't replenished. Which is "worse"? A pointless comparison. Weighing negative environmental effects like vegetables on a supermarket scale is idiocy. Both can be bad, and both need to be moderated to a heavy degree.
> Weighing negative environmental effects like vegetables on a supermarket scale is idiocy.
You might say idiocy, I would say necessary.
How else can you hope to construct policy? Unless your solution is for us to live like Jains, hovering 2mm above the ground to avoid squashing woodlice.
Anonymous :
1 day ago :
No.7042
>>7043
>>7042
fyi, I (7041) am not the guy you were talking to before.
I actually totally agree with your point that it's facile and lazy to act as if the existence of economic structures totally absolves oneself of the need to act ethically.
But each individual, as well as each government, has a certain amount of capability (call it willpower or bandwidth or capital or whatever you want) to enact change and that requires a certain amount of hard-headedness and utilitarianism towards environmental damage.
An example. It is vital that we use more sustainable sources of power, and of transport. Is it reasonable then that massive amounts of time and money are expended in many western countries to ensure that projects such as wind farms and railways do not have damaging effects on native wildlife? How much effort is reasonable, and how does it weigh against delaying such projects? Someone has to make the decision, which should hopefully involve some sort of calculus, on how many bats or birds we are willing to kill to cut our carbon footprint.
And this also applies to individuals. Recycling glass bottles and aluminium cans is reasonable and expected of the citizenry. Picking apart packaging into five different subcategories of translucent plastic is not. Somewhere there is a tipping point between that which can, and that which cannot, be expected of the individual.
>>7049>>7042
We just need to hold ourselves to a higher personal standard bro. It's called personal responsibility, if you believe in "policy" or "laws" you're a Stalinist
>>7041
>>7038
> Weighing negative environmental effects like vegetables on a supermarket scale is idiocy.
You might say idiocy, I would say necessary.
How else can you hope to construct policy? Unless your solution is for us to live like Jains, hovering 2mm above the ground to avoid squashing woodlice.
"Policy" is the new religion. Americans hated the Soviet Union but have crafted for themselves the same state religion, worship of the bureaucracy. Every single positive possibility of change becomes impossible in the tangled web of institutions, bureaucracy, contracts, laws, networks, market logic, and so on and so on. This "policy" has become the new will power.
Sure, in a practical manner, some things are best handled at the policy level: like land use, which would be a concern for large-scale buildings and development like a data center. Absent of that, a real society would have direct action to fall back on. Ahem. Anyway.
Some things are better informed by cultural and social norms, such as you or your father's choice to board an airplane. We can establish a rule for ourselves to fly less. We don't have to Enact Policy for that to happen, we don't need to literally outlaw all human flight like a Fox news boomer fantasy. We can evade the question of bureaucracy or ~policy~ altogether, and hold ourselves to a higher personal standard, judging whether traveling somewhere is really necessary, and otherwise, consciously taking steps to avoid it. I would want someone to get onto a plane for a funeral of a dear family member, or to go to an academic or professional conference. But, the context of your retort to your father suggest he is using it for repeated and frequent vacations or just to burn savings like many in that demographic.
Now, the average person will look at this and go, but what about the billionaires in their private jets? Why do we have to shoulder the responsibility? And while this isn't quite faulty logic, it gets us nowhere at the end of the day, only sitting around and pouting that things get worse while those other people also aren't changing their habits.
I think the snarky comparison to Jainism is in bad faith. They did not achieve the total ahimsa they imagined to be possible, but they still introduced the idea to millions of their people who proceeded to follow an imperfect, though ultimately effective, form of it. Even the most lax modern Jains will do their best to adhere to the diet and other principles laid down from antiquity. Was that broader, longer-lasting benefit not better than complaining about how individual carbon footprint is a WEF psyop, and throwing our hands up in the air and saying there's no ethical consumption under capitalism?
>>7042
>>7041
"Policy" is the new religion. Americans hated the Soviet Union but have crafted for themselves the same state religion, worship of the bureaucracy. Every single positive possibility of change becomes impossible in the tangled web of institutions, bureaucracy, contracts, laws, networks, market logic, and so on and so on. This "policy" has become the new will power.
Sure, in a practical manner, some things are best handled at the policy level: like land use, which would be a concern for large-scale buildings and development like a data center. Absent of that, a real society would have direct action to fall back on. Ahem. Anyway.
Some things are better informed by cultural and social norms, such as you or your father's choice to board an airplane. We can establish a rule for ourselves to fly less. We don't have to Enact Policy for that to happen, we don't need to literally outlaw all human flight like a Fox news boomer fantasy. We can evade the question of bureaucracy or ~policy~ altogether, and hold ourselves to a higher personal standard, judging whether traveling somewhere is really necessary, and otherwise, consciously taking steps to avoid it. I would want someone to get onto a plane for a funeral of a dear family member, or to go to an academic or professional conference. But, the context of your retort to your father suggest he is using it for repeated and frequent vacations or just to burn savings like many in that demographic.
Now, the average person will look at this and go, but what about the billionaires in their private jets? Why do we have to shoulder the responsibility? And while this isn't quite faulty logic, it gets us nowhere at the end of the day, only sitting around and pouting that things get worse while those other people also aren't changing their habits.
I think the snarky comparison to Jainism is in bad faith. They did not achieve the total ahimsa they imagined to be possible, but they still introduced the idea to millions of their people who proceeded to follow an imperfect, though ultimately effective, form of it. Even the most lax modern Jains will do their best to adhere to the diet and other principles laid down from antiquity. Was that broader, longer-lasting benefit not better than complaining about how individual carbon footprint is a WEF psyop, and throwing our hands up in the air and saying there's no ethical consumption under capitalism?
fyi, I (7041) am not the guy you were talking to before.
I actually totally agree with your point that it's facile and lazy to act as if the existence of economic structures totally absolves oneself of the need to act ethically.
But each individual, as well as each government, has a certain amount of capability (call it willpower or bandwidth or capital or whatever you want) to enact change and that requires a certain amount of hard-headedness and utilitarianism towards environmental damage.
An example. It is vital that we use more sustainable sources of power, and of transport. Is it reasonable then that massive amounts of time and money are expended in many western countries to ensure that projects such as wind farms and railways do not have damaging effects on native wildlife? How much effort is reasonable, and how does it weigh against delaying such projects? Someone has to make the decision, which should hopefully involve some sort of calculus, on how many bats or birds we are willing to kill to cut our carbon footprint.
And this also applies to individuals. Recycling glass bottles and aluminium cans is reasonable and expected of the citizenry. Picking apart packaging into five different subcategories of translucent plastic is not. Somewhere there is a tipping point between that which can, and that which cannot, be expected of the individual.
>>7038
>>7025
>the carbon footprint of his flying was worse
Well the "carbon footprint" of flying comes from the emissions of its engines primarily, whereas the problem with data centers its its water (and power) usage. A data center might not spew as much gas into the air but it might eat up groundwater that isn't replenished. Which is "worse"? A pointless comparison. Weighing negative environmental effects like vegetables on a supermarket scale is idiocy. Both can be bad, and both need to be moderated to a heavy degree.
>Weighing negative environmental effects like vegetables on a supermarket scale is idiocy
Yeah why worry about the "impact" of our actions or if they "work" or "matter" just be a hecking good person and don't think about it
>>7042
>>7041
"Policy" is the new religion. Americans hated the Soviet Union but have crafted for themselves the same state religion, worship of the bureaucracy. Every single positive possibility of change becomes impossible in the tangled web of institutions, bureaucracy, contracts, laws, networks, market logic, and so on and so on. This "policy" has become the new will power.
Sure, in a practical manner, some things are best handled at the policy level: like land use, which would be a concern for large-scale buildings and development like a data center. Absent of that, a real society would have direct action to fall back on. Ahem. Anyway.
Some things are better informed by cultural and social norms, such as you or your father's choice to board an airplane. We can establish a rule for ourselves to fly less. We don't have to Enact Policy for that to happen, we don't need to literally outlaw all human flight like a Fox news boomer fantasy. We can evade the question of bureaucracy or ~policy~ altogether, and hold ourselves to a higher personal standard, judging whether traveling somewhere is really necessary, and otherwise, consciously taking steps to avoid it. I would want someone to get onto a plane for a funeral of a dear family member, or to go to an academic or professional conference. But, the context of your retort to your father suggest he is using it for repeated and frequent vacations or just to burn savings like many in that demographic.
Now, the average person will look at this and go, but what about the billionaires in their private jets? Why do we have to shoulder the responsibility? And while this isn't quite faulty logic, it gets us nowhere at the end of the day, only sitting around and pouting that things get worse while those other people also aren't changing their habits.
I think the snarky comparison to Jainism is in bad faith. They did not achieve the total ahimsa they imagined to be possible, but they still introduced the idea to millions of their people who proceeded to follow an imperfect, though ultimately effective, form of it. Even the most lax modern Jains will do their best to adhere to the diet and other principles laid down from antiquity. Was that broader, longer-lasting benefit not better than complaining about how individual carbon footprint is a WEF psyop, and throwing our hands up in the air and saying there's no ethical consumption under capitalism?
We just need to hold ourselves to a higher personal standard bro. It's called personal responsibility, if you believe in "policy" or "laws" you're a Stalinist
>>7038
>>7025
>the carbon footprint of his flying was worse
Well the "carbon footprint" of flying comes from the emissions of its engines primarily, whereas the problem with data centers its its water (and power) usage. A data center might not spew as much gas into the air but it might eat up groundwater that isn't replenished. Which is "worse"? A pointless comparison. Weighing negative environmental effects like vegetables on a supermarket scale is idiocy. Both can be bad, and both need to be moderated to a heavy degree.
FWIW the context was in regard to individual ChatGPT prompts and they were implying a need to rigidly not do even a single one. They also fly every week. It wasn't about "weighing negative environmental effects like vegetables on a supermarket scale" but rather an obvious orders of magnitude difference scale that struck me as hypocritical. That said, physics and engineering being what they are, you can absolutely get a rudimentary equivalence going between such things and your hostility to that is strange to me.
Is this any different than the other forms of first world nations using magic to print money? Can a programmer explain how the form of coding or the future/dignity of the digital world is really in danger?