Aigars Mahinovs wrote: > [... 32 lines elided] > > Yes, that is *exactly* what I wrote.
No, that is *exactly* NOT what you wrote. > Google is not 100% green in their data > center power sourcing, but they are investing *heavily* to bring up green > energy as fast as humanly possible. Without those investements, these green > energy systems would *not* have been financed or build. At the end of the > day, there is is far more green energy production there *because* Google is > using all it can get its hands on and is paying premium for it. If by Google's own admission, their "AI infrastructure buildout is currently accelerating faster than the grid is decarbonizing" then "as fast as humanly possible" is simply *not good enough*. Why should every other inhabitant of this planet pay the externalized costs of these corps' -greed- err, "ambitions"? Oh but then again, externalizing costs onto other people seems to be the specialty of the house and the exact deliberate course of action when it comes to the people pushing this, just like how they've had no problem whatsoever bringing down the infrastructure of our commons to its knees while nonconsensually and destructively scraping and vacuuming up every bit of information they can possibly get their claws on, and continue to ram this and its externalized costs down the throats of everyone. > Consumption > *creates* green energy. Yeah no it doesn't. > Without AI *and* big players driving sustainability there would have been > *less* green energy on the grid today. No. We did NOT have to do this. This madness was not some inevitable technological "progress", for us to now count our blessings and thank our overlords that they're producing some more green energy while also happily burning through much greater amounts of nonrenewables in their arms race to burning our planet.
