No. It’s risen because corporate execs think they can gouge you for money to increase the high scores in their bank accounts. Increased demand means they’d be selling more which would mean more profits or even your bills decreasing if they were being fair. As usual it’s corps and billionaires that are the problem

I’m calling out how stupidly and obviously disingenuous the article is. That’s not whataboutism. Do you know what disingenuous means? The article claims it has a huge environmental impact. It doesn’t.

The environmental impact of AI is massively overblown all the fucking time and I don’t like lies. And I do like AI

Yanks doing this shit is just so cringy

Chrome sucks, sure. Did you have a coherent point beyond that? No, didn’t think so.

I don’t even know what you’re getting at here. You claim my comment, which points out how disingenuous the article is, is whataboutism, then provide some whataboutism.

The article, as usual, makes no comparison to the environmental impact of companies like McDonalds (who use PER DAY what every AI data centre combined in the world uses PER YEAR, not companies like Shell or BP who are orders of magnitude worse than that. This is the usual anti-ai fear-mongering bollocks.

Should Google have installed it unasked? No, that’s bullshit, possibly illegal bullshit but honestly considering how disingenuous the environmental impact is I can’t trust the legal stuff that I don’t know about either. But it is not an environmental catastrophe as whoever wrote this article would like you to believe for some reason.

Honest question: why are the haters pushing their nonsense? What do they have to gain?

edit: As usually the haters and useful idiots provide nonsense counterpoints and downvote because they don’t have laugh reacts to demonstrate their groupthink and wilful ignorance. I really wish they’d all shut the hell up, they’re annoying!

He has a vested interest in saying that, but he’s right, and it would be awful

Why?