from all sides

partisan blindness is a leading contributor to political corruption

left versus right is just divide and conquer when both parties are owned and controlled by the upper class

the issue is do illiterate people even have fair or reasonable access to capital or technology?

agreed

pardon pun

i overstepped, my apologies

the problem is that unless he sells us the real goods, it'll just be more smoke and mirrors, people just stopped buying into that crap

no, what we are seeing is just how foolish and gullible enslaved and entitled people really are, owned people are so easily lead

no, you just cannot debate so you label your opponent as dishonest and use that as an excuse to avoid discussing the issue

i'd like to point out that's typical confrontational and one-sided behavior

just saying

The senior overpaid people at NASA and the military industrial complex needs shock and awe in order to keep us taxpayers fooled. What we really need is an orbital rotating space habitat and orbital assembly platforms. We need to establish a orbital workspace before we establish a real moon base. I see all this Artemis Mission stuff as just NASA putting on the big show for the big money. In my opinion, those in charge at NASA and at these transnational corporations are clearly misguided, self-serving and completely incompetent.

So you're just going to dodge the issue by claiming any response is just written by an AI. Nice try. All my points are valid and enough said.

When you have a thoughtful response to the issues we're discussing, let me know, thanks.

Ii think AI is a new type of challenger because it scales better than we do. There's limits to what people can accomplish and there's limits to intelligence but self replicating individual sentient machines may very well redefine what we think of as evolution.

However, it's not AI per se I'm concerned with, it's AI empowered upper class people who use all of our technology to further their domination over the rest of us.

in a free and open society. That we have governments and corporations that cannot tell the truth tells us they are completely unethical. If they were doing good, they'd be showing off but since they're ashamed, they hide their actions. This is exactly what classism and crime looks likes

classism breeds corruption which produces incompetency

Your response begins not by engaging the substance of the report, but by questioning whether I read it and by attacking the credibility of the authors. Pointing out that Friends of the Earth has historically taken anti-nuclear or anti-growth positions does not, by itself, invalidate the data or analysis in the report. An organization’s prior stance on unrelated policy matters does not automatically make its current claims false. If the report contains errors, those errors should be demonstrated directly. Dismissing the source is not the same as refuting the argument.

You argue that data centres consume roughly 1.5% of global electricity and that AI represents only a fraction of that, with Bitcoin being larger. But the relevant issue is not only the present share; it is the growth trajectory. AI workloads are expanding at an extraordinary rate compared to many other data centre uses. Even institutions such as the International Energy Agency have identified AI as a major emerging driver of electricity demand growth. A small percentage today does not eliminate legitimate concern about rapid scaling tomorrow.

You also claim that distinguishing between “generative AI” and “traditional AI” is meaningless because much of modern AI uses similar architectures, such as Transformers. While it is true that architectures overlap, deployment patterns differ substantially. A specialized industrial model running locally or serving limited requests is not equivalent, in energy demand or infrastructure requirements, to globally deployed consumer chat systems handling hundreds of millions of interactions daily. Drawing distinctions based on scale and deployment context is not inherently “dumb”; it reflects material differences in energy use and infrastructure expansion.

Your assertion that it is all “the same hardware” similarly avoids a key issue: marginal demand. If new GPU clusters are built primarily in response to generative AI demand, then that demand drives additional construction, embodied carbon, cooling infrastructure, and power draw. Infrastructure fungibility does not eliminate responsibility for the demand that triggers expansion. The question is not whether the hardware can serve multiple uses, but what is motivating its accelerated build-out.

You emphasize efficiency gains, including claims that AI accelerates software development and improves system design. Efficiency, however, does not automatically translate into net emissions reduction. Historically, efficiency improvements have often led to increased overall consumption, a dynamic associated with William Stanley Jevons. You yourself acknowledge that rebound effects may be the real concern. That concession weakens your earlier dismissal. If AI significantly increases productivity across the economy, the resulting expansion in output and consumption could outweigh efficiency gains in individual processes.

You criticize the report for counting claims rather than modeling aggregate magnitude. Yet your rebuttal relies heavily on listing examples of successful AI applications: wind forecasting improvements, rainforest monitoring, methane detection, and grid balancing. The existence of beneficial case studies does not prove systemic net benefit. Likewise, the existence of harms does not prove systemic net harm. The proper evaluation requires comprehensive modeling of total impact, not selective examples on either side.

You object to what you describe as a double standard regarding corporate studies, suggesting that the report dismisses corporate benefit claims while accepting corporate harm disclosures. But skepticism toward corporate self-reported benefits is not irrational. Companies have incentives to emphasize positive impacts and to frame sustainability narratives favorably. Independent verification and transparent lifecycle accounting are necessary precisely because of those incentives.

Most importantly, your response does not address the original concern: ownership and concentration of power. The issue raised was not simply whether AI can optimize wind forecasting or detect methane leaks. It was who controls the infrastructure, who owns the compute, and how that concentration shapes economic and political power. Even if AI delivers climate benefits, the consolidation of advanced AI capability within a small number of corporations raises questions about governance, market dominance, regulatory influence, and systemic dependency. Those concerns remain unaddressed in your reply.

Forecasts suggesting AI may account for around 1% of global emissions by 2030 depend on assumptions about continued efficiency gains, renewable energy expansion, and controlled growth rates. Forecasts are not guarantees. Digital infrastructure growth has often exceeded earlier projections. Questioning optimistic scenarios is not anti-technology; it is prudent risk assessment.

A balanced position can acknowledge that AI provides genuine tools for environmental monitoring, optimization, and scientific advancement while also recognizing its growing energy footprint, potential rebound effects, and concentration of ownership. Framing the issue as a binary choice between technological progress and anti-growth ideology oversimplifies a complex and consequential debate.

Your response highlights benefits and minimizes risks, but it does not meaningfully engage with concerns about marginal infrastructure expansion, lifecycle emissions, rebound dynamics, or governance concentration. Those omissions matter. A serious discussion requires transparent accounting, independent validation, systemic modeling, and attention to who ultimately controls and directs the technology.

no, if the earth exists multidimensionally, then the beings here at every level of existence also inhabit the higher dimensional modes we coexist within, the Many Worlds Theory for example, there's nothing extraterrestrial about it

i also noticed you can't reply without being insulting can you?

knew it was too good to last