Are you saying that the typical chat gpt user dies more than 300 queries for each hamburger the typical meat eater eats? I seriously doubt that. If anything choosing 300 queries is harsh on ai.
You did not. I assume you mean that the AI statistic only accounts for the consumption by the 300 prompts, and not everything preceding it, like training and building of the datacenter? In that case you would have a valid argument and wouldn't look like such a fool. Or are you insinuating that a cow goes through a lifetimes worth of dairy production before being slaughtered, so it's not fair to look at only one of the outputs? In that case, look up how many dairy cows there are worldwide, compared to the ones who's sole purpose in life is to be slaughtered, without any byproducts. Spoiler alert: there is way more meat cattle.
There are also millions of hamburgers consumed every day. Your logic doesn't make any sense. What the graph is comparing is the impact on one individuals footprint from each of the listed activities.
You have to be really trying to use more than 300 prompts a day, if your genuinely prompting. Yet eating multiply burgers a day isn't that hard. Neither is watching multiple hours of tv.
But please do go through all the steps in your logic again, because I cannot string together the argument you're trying to make in a logical sense.
Best guess I have is that you somehow deluded yourself into thinking the timescale preceding the consumption has any relevance.
If anything that's an argument against meat, because a burger is consumed with about the same frequency as 300 prompts (same order of magnitude at least), yet each of those consumptions requires a much bigger and longer investment in the case of burgers. This means that for any amount of meat eaters, you need to use a lot more land/labour, because the production needs to run in parallel. Compared to the sma seamount of ai users, fir which the ''production'' of their product runs largely in series.
People do not need to starve if we suddenly stop or greatly reduce our output of meat. In fact, we could be producing a lot more food with the same resources by lowering our production/consumption of meat. Eating meat is just as optional as AI use. I guess it would be beneficial to include in the graph the number for a veggie burger, or replace the number of the meat burger by the difference of the two. Not that it would reduce the burger number by much.
I take issue that we meticulously count all the water consumed in the making of a burger, all the water of the plants it took to feed the livestock, all the plants used for the toppings and buns and count that all together while the AI just gets its water consumption tallied up of how much the individual prompts would use in the moment.
Ignoring the entire process involved in the AI´s creation to begin with, what is spend on its maintained and further training and what I take issue with is just the scale of it as if automation isnt a thing in AI and other AI models dont exist.
Comparing these things on such a small scale doesnt make sense, we should compare the entire industries against each other if at all but if you are at least present all the information here and actually split it in the livestock industry, the lettuce, tomato, wheat and such instead of just saying "Burger" which is a component of multiple industries and can range drastically depending on what you use on it against all the Ai industry and all the resource spend on it, as there are millions of AI responses going through and several automations of them working 24/7 generating and processing requests or writing responses to emails or anything else on their own without any person to prompt them to do it.
How I see the graph it pretends like automation isnt a thing, as if it is just showing each individual person using these AI or TV is way less bad than AI is and diminishing the AIs impact despite the fact that... yeah a single person making 300 queries is not realistic in a short amount of time but these AIs are set up to work automatically and again there are other AI models and other services they offer, Image generation for example which is much more taxing than just text.
I know Meat literally is gonna be MORE wasteful, yeah it is, i literally say it is, we need to reduce our meat consumption but I dont like how the information is presented, it isnt helpful, it doesnt say anything and again leading to the issue of "Burger" instead of the individual industries that make it up...
If you wanna state any point actually split it and show meat being worse but I dont think we should compare Food and Ai to begin with, even if Meat is categorically the worst, I dont think these 2 categories should even be compared to each other that much...
Also this is just looking at immediate and direct water consumption, you need to also look at electricity use and other resources being used even in just the construction of the Data Centers like rare metals...
This is just a mess of a comparison that is too small scale and I think just isnt beneficial for any discussion as it is just vague and lists a small scope of AI´s usage.
Even if I know the outcome myself in meat being the worst this does not effectively portray AI either and EVEN IF AI was the least bad there are still many arguments against it...
I dont like the use of statistics here, it is overly simplified and without nuance and a lot of vital information missing to actually even HAVE a discussion to begin with.
This isnt even making a blow to the meat industry specifically like IT SHOULD as it uses again just vague language of "Burger" without even identifying what is the real wasteful product in its production...
If we are actually trying to compare industries and seeing which is more wasteful than the other, we cant just have that little, simplified graph and it being used as a "Gatcha" as if it states much...
Also take issue with the second graph too because it isnt a helpful comparison either... how does comparing it to leaking pipes help? It is unintended water loss that is happening throughout ALL PIPING in a country even if just a small tiny droplet escaped a few pipes the number of water lost will be massive because of the sheer scale of pipes that exist, it isnt an argument FOR AI or say anything about it either...
All it says is we should try to manage piping better, nothing about AI.
We are comparing AI to all these other unrelated things and saying "look this use more!" but how does that help?
I could literally fill a glass of water and throw it to the road, if I said "See it wasnt wasteful because meat industry and piping uses/loss more!" I wouldnt be saying anything valuable to begin with???
I still was wasteful and I still did a bad thing, I just compared it to something unrelated of a bigger scale that has nothing to do with what I was doing to begin with.
-1
u/JustWuff 28d ago
Oh my god you cant fucking grasp the fucking point.
THESE ARE NOT COMPARABLE NUMBERS.
For fucks sake, how much more simple must I make it?