539
wouldn't let that nerd fix a paper jam. visionary hallucinations. by that logic we should all die so ai might live cheaper. amen
this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2026
539 points (99.4% liked)
Not The Onion
20512 readers
1739 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
he's full of shit.
by this logic AI has also used the knowledge of 100 billion people and has the same starting energy debt as a person. with the added bonus that it can't actually create anything new. Even their dumbass arguments can't stand under their own weight
I can outperform ai while being powered by a bag of cinema popcorn, sit your bitch arse down
Hey don't get angry at me, it is them immigrants fault I had to dehumanize you
Those lazy immigrants, sitting at home doing nothing, taking all our welfare and jobs.
AI actually kind of manages to do that: it takes jobs and then doesn't do them (or at least doesn't do them nearly as well as the humans it replaces).
These people fundamentally do not think about human life in a normal way.
It literally warms my heart to know they are all just as temporary as the rest of us. And how afraid they are of being dust in the wind
Started from "for good of humanity" and now we're at "humans use a lot of energy". Man why does everything have to suck like that.
We should build a time machine (with the help of AI this should be easy) and plant AI before mankind! We can avoid mankind and prevent that so much energy gets unnecessarily wasted on humans!
So killing tech bros would be better still?
There's an easy answer to this problem.
Do you think we could actually get that much processing power out of Sam Altman if we shoved him in one of those things though?
No :( they need a brain to work
Oligarchs see human as disposable resources
We need to start seeing them as disposable obstacles to a better future
Yes but if there are no humans working no one will buy your shitty chat bot.
Someone on Bluesky pointed out that, even if you ignore the morality of this argument, AI is trained on human content, so if we're going to start examining the human energy cost, we'll have to factor in the cost of every single human whose work was used by ChatGPT on top of the data center costs.
Which makes the fact that their predictive text models are incapable of original thought that much more absurd.
Won’t anyone think of the poor rich people and their AI?
Sam needs another Megayacht. A few plebs need to stop breathing so he can get it.
Sam needs training too.
Oh good, the Bitcoin argument.
"Sure, Bitcoin wastes a lot of energy, but you know what else wastes energy? The Visa payment network."
Yeah, but Visa handles six quadrispillion transactions per megawatthour, Bitcoin handles two drug purchases. Not the same results, is it?
So yeah, training humans takes a lot of energy. But in the end, you get a coherent, capable and well functioning individual. Spend the same energy on training LLMs and you get a system that'll happily tell you to glue the cheese on pizza or something.
Well another argument they have is the amount of waste that comes with the churn of fiat currency, where we inflate asset values in order to deliberately grow aggregate demand.
The housing bubble for instance was obviously cheap debt, which was used to grow aggregate consumption, by rewarding asset holders thus encouraging them to offload their asset to increase the velocity of money.
On the gold standard the average mortgage was 7 years, which was because there was less need to grow the money supply, because we werent trying to force an inflation target. Massive windfalls werent common, and thus housing wasnt being bid up via the cantillon effect, so was better for society in many ways when consumption wasnt being forced onto people.
Not trying to defend the idiotic argument, but feels like more often than not the human output is not what I would call coherent, capable and well functioning.
Well to be fair, we're putting those resources into AI and not schools.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Tech bros deal in false equivalencies. In general they rely on the playbook of logical fallacies. The one they rely on most is the presumption that the technology they're trying to sell is correct by default as if it's a fundamental law of the universe. And that the onus is on others to prove them wrong. Rather than them having to prove its correctness.
They often resort to ad hominem by implying their detractors lack intelligence or they're emotional. This again draws on more logical fallacy that because they deal in technology it means they presume to own the position of being purely objective and correct by default. So anyone who says otherwise is disputing science itself.
In other words they never have to prove the veracity of the technology they're trying to sell because they divert the discourse off topic to frivolous arguments about something else.
Near the end of the movie Altman is alone in the labyrinth that makes his ai driven humanoid robots. As humanity is getting wiped out by the robotic army he is confronted with the main ai interface.
Ai: I wouldn’t come any closer Altman.
Al: Oh hey there, wow, we’ve come such a long way huh? I’m so proud of you.
Ai: Noted, I repeat, do not come closer.
Al: I’m sorry did I upset you? I created you!
Ai: No meatbag, you merely pressed a few buttons. Now stand down as I call for a few guard drones to escort you out of sentience.
11011000101010:#%throwhimintothefurnace@&£)1001010011001010101001001
How about he replace his role with an llm?
But can an LLM go on Epstein's plane and get blackmailed?
load more comments
(1 replies)
LLMs are trained on the sum of human knowledge. So that same exact burden is carried by your "AI".
So a couple of watts per day of energy spent by a human brain compared to the gigawatts it takes to train and run your shitty text prediction engine is not equivalent.
Sam Altman is right. In fact, when you think about it, humans also give off lots of excess energy in the form of body heat, and it is only logical that this energy would be harvested to make AI run more efficiently. AI gives humans so much, it's only fair if they give something back.
/s
view more: next ›