AI companies are not transparent enough about the environmental cost of generating images, so it is possible that I should stop using these tools.
I wouldn't worry much about this, those costs on a per-user basis are incredibly low, almost certainly much lower than other things you won't worry about. Andy Masley is a great source on the topic: https://blog.andymasley.com/p/a-cheat-sheet-for-conversations-about
That said, many (most?) parts of society have a strong anti-AI preference, and strategically it doesn't make sense to anger your audience.
I think it is worth separating "don't do this because it's morally wrong" from "don't do this because it's not effective for winning hearts and minds".
Interesting post, certainly an interesting comparison and an existence proof that technology that's somewhat difficult to create but trivial to distribute and reproduce can be regulated to oblivion in large sections of the world for decades.
A point conspicuous by its absence: the overregulation of GM crops was (and remains) a mistake, or at the least is nearly universally agreed to be so by the people with the most technical knowledge (e.g. people with PhDs in plant biology).
I understand whether it was wise to grossly curb deployment of GM crops was not the point of the post, merely whether it was politically feasible starting with a relatively small contingent of protesters. I'm still miffed that the anti-science and overall almost certainly negative-EV-ness of the GM overregulation wasn't mentioned, especially given quotes like "This coincided with key 'trigger events' like Mad Cow Disease and the arrival of GM crops in March 1996" which would suggest a causal connection between the two.
I wouldn't worry much about this, those costs on a per-user basis are incredibly low, almost certainly much lower than other things you won't worry about. Andy Masley is a great source on the topic: https://blog.andymasley.com/p/a-cheat-sheet-for-conversations-about
That said, many (most?) parts of society have a strong anti-AI preference, and strategically it doesn't make sense to anger your audience.
I think it is worth separating "don't do this because it's morally wrong" from "don't do this because it's not effective for winning hearts and minds".
Interesting post, certainly an interesting comparison and an existence proof that technology that's somewhat difficult to create but trivial to distribute and reproduce can be regulated to oblivion in large sections of the world for decades.
A point conspicuous by its absence: the overregulation of GM crops was (and remains) a mistake, or at the least is nearly universally agreed to be so by the people with the most technical knowledge (e.g. people with PhDs in plant biology).
I understand whether it was wise to grossly curb deployment of GM crops was not the point of the post, merely whether it was politically feasible starting with a relatively small contingent of protesters. I'm still miffed that the anti-science and overall almost certainly negative-EV-ness of the GM overregulation wasn't mentioned, especially given quotes like "This coincided with key 'trigger events' like Mad Cow Disease and the arrival of GM crops in March 1996" which would suggest a causal connection between the two.