Yeah but that's not what the discourse around water and AI is. When people speak about water and AI/dc's, they're indicating that water is being "taken" from other uses. As if a AI usage will oneday cause you to turn on your facet and nothing but an auto-tuned cackle comes out. That the well has gone dry. That water is a scarce resource (which, sometimes it is, esp. if you're drawing from an aquifer in the southwest)
A data centre's construction sentiment clogging pipes is fixable; an acute issue. The discourse is that AI causes chronic strain.
But like... the same people will watch 2-3 hours of HD Netflix or post on TikTok right after lodging their complaints on Reddit. The MW/h of AI isn't that big compared to these services. And the carbon sync of digital goods, including data centres, pales in comparison to the supply chain of Blockbuster. Nobody gave af then.
The reason they're cherry picking AI is because we're all sick of seeing tech billionaires thrive when everyone else is pressed by inflation and stagnant job markets.
I wish people would knock this off. There is zero path to AGI at the moment — and all the Anthropic/pentagon Sam Altman/AI-skynet stuff is scaring people into being fearful (and outright ignorant) to the actual uses of this probabilistic NPL tool.
You can't use AI atm without a human with proper knowledge spot checking and directing it. We should market it that way.
This is not correct. People trust their "apps". They know Spotify's algo can feed them novel music. They know Kobo's reader connects to libraries in a way that isn't the DRM-lockin that Amazon shovels.
Most non-tech folks are incredibly skeptical about AI due to the piss-poor brand management of OpenAI and Anthropic—pushing an AGI Skynet post-employment narrative to make the tech feel bigger than it is.
I trust Google (and certainly Apple) to figure some of this stuff out—but nobody wants an LLM, that nobody knows how it operates, to run the show entirely. Heuristically, we may get away with a Human-on-the-loop approach—-not a Human-in-the-loop or Out-of-the-loop approach.
You're making a hubris-laden assumption coders know the gaps their baking into their software — that any human has a decent enough grip on the multitudes of spinning logic duct taped together to make the internet run. Most vulnerabilities aren't "ignored"; they're in a neverending backlog or unknown.
If you closed all of the AI-discovered security vulnerabilities tomorrow - by the next day there'd be a host of new ones. That's software, baby.
I would never advise anyone buy a Microsoft Windows laptop these days — between the forced updates, the account and service-fee thirst, ads, and consumer unfriendly product release process (forced opt-in).
Guess what? With Apple's new Neo laptop the price is also way way wayyy out to lunch.
If MSFT gives a business a huge bulk discount to buy their laptops + Office360 + Teams... OK? But as a "consumer" it really sucks.
Yeah — I liked it in general. But can completely see why artists would hate the concept of a giant weight crushing the artistic object that has fueled their life-long obsessions.
Doing evaluative research on "screen v. buttons" you'll find that even on smartphones physical buttons outperform touchscreens. The reason people choose no-keyboard is the benefits a phone brings them as a multi-purpose device outweighs the benefit of "more accurate typing than on a screen".
Creative Selection is a good book to read. It details the process at Apple from the dev who worked on the very first keyboard of iOS. The design of the keyboard + autocorrect needed to be good enough that people could type on it reasonably well. It was one of the credited reasons why the Newton was said to have failed so they put A LOT of effort into this feature of the handset.
Does this apply to a car screen? Probably. A car is also much bigger than a handheld device so maybe you don't have to choose. But in the end great design is always about making good choices.