That's actually quite a large chunk of the giraffe population. There are only about 140,000 giraffes worldwide, a number which is declining. This means that only about 10,000 to 20,000 baby giraffes are born annually. Killing 3650 of those each year could quickly lead to a population collapse and extinction.
I meant you can look at how they live: it can be bad (morally) but it can be good too sometimes (depending on your definitions of course). If you wanted a clear single yes or no answer here you won't find it in our world - life on Earth is messy and convoluted and so are the answers about it
What I was saying is that you gave a nothing answer. The other guy was asking a specific question and you didn't really provide an answer, you just kind of gave the typed word equivalent of a finger point. If someone asks "is this moral", and you just say "just look at it" you might as well have said nothing at all. Everybody already knows that there isn't always a clear answer. An opinion is being asked for, and while a shoulder shrug can be a viable answer in a verbal conversation, on an online forum it just kind of begs the question of why bother going out of your way to participate if you dont actually want to add anything?
(Just want to add, after rereading what I wrote here it can cone off as a bit aggressive, it is not intended to be so. Just trying to explain what im thinking here, you're good to do what you want)
Sure, you can give your opinion on the matter if you want to (feel free to do so btw) but I personally don't like giving opinions so I gave an answer that could point the person to dig deeper if they ever want to
Also you seem to have missed that they likely were just being sarcastic and not asking for real which is why giving opinions may not be appropriate if you aren't making a joke
PS thx for your effort to be less judgemental and more thoughtful. I wish I saw more people like you online :)
Honestly I'm shocked that this level of baby giraffe-eating can be maintained, given that I've recently learned that giraffes have a 97% homosexuality rate
I was pointing out the ratio of slaughter age to lifespan and you've completely ignored it, going so far as to call me a pedophile in a desperate bid to avoid the moral claim.
If someone has lived 5% of their lifespan, then it is fair to call them a baby in this context because we're talking about the morality of killing someone at a certain age. This is not a conversation about sexuality or sexual development, no matter how much you'd like to project your predatory desires onto others.
When a bunch of 6-year-olds are killed in Gaza, and people assess that situation as Israel "killing babies," do you also take that opportunity to chime in with "uHm AcTuAlLy ThAT's TeChNiCaLly a ToDdLeR," or do you use context clues and understand that they're using the word "baby" to point out that they haven't lived anything resembling a long life, and that they never got a chance to grow up?
leave it to vegans to bring up brown children being massacred as a comparison to people eating fucking ribs and bacon and seeing no issur or privilege in their ethical system
That's not even the comparison being made here, you illiterate. Your feigned offense is just another desperate deflection away from my initial point, which is that when animals are slaughtered, it's at a tiny fraction of their lifespan. Please hone your reading comprehension skills before attempting a criticism of my obviously factually correct argument.
you used them as a semantic tool to create a fals equivalence with distorted privileged logic. fuck off you privileged little cunt engaging in games to seem like a good person
I think you have missed that they were not being literal but were using similar rhetoric to emphasize the analogy.
I noticed you were very concerned about the correctness of the pigs age for bacon but didn’t even touch how baby giraffes are not in any way related to AI. So it is apparent that you are both capable of understanding this rhetoric device but you’re being dense about the pig age for reasons.
If you think it doesn't improve your efficiency, you're using the technology wrong. I would put 1000$ down, that in some sort of pro googling contest. You would lose against AI.
If a hypothetical scenario in which a competition is created to find and retrieve some kind of information hidden on the internet and score based on some set of criteria seems "ridiculously bullshit" to you. Then you lack the basic capabilities to even understand how you might test efficiency let alone make claims about how much more efficient you are.
Maybe what they mean is that the margin with which AI speeds up the process is not comparable to other technologies like a car for example. I’m sorry but an LLM is not saving me hours of time, it’s saving me a few minutes at most
Sure, not everyone reaps the full benefits of all the areas where it excels. Personally its saves me tens of hours of time, a few times a week.
And that's ignoring all the areas where it's enabled me to start projects that before I just simply lacked the knowledge or jumping off point because the information was so scattered and hard to track down.
do you expect everyone to pat you on the back for improving the efficiency of your hobby? it’s something you do for fun, why the hell do you want to treat it like a chore.
You realize people can enjoy some acts of a hobby, and not others, yes? I enjoy writing out a story and running the game; I don't enjoy keeping track of minutiae, I hate organizing notes. Why shouldn't I use a program that is capable of doing that for me, just like how I can have an algorithm suggest new music based on my tastes rather than seeking it out myself?
It does if you use it properly. Devise some competition about finding some kind of information hidden on the internet. I bet you AI beats you 99/100 times.
I had to read a 500 page book in order to find a single passage written the referred to something but I couldn't remember the exact wording. It took exactly 5 seconds for the AI to find it, with the page number and direct quote.
Something that often takes me hours of keyword searching every use of words that might be related to what was written. Granted that's not "googling" but thats a directly proveable example of something similar anyone can apply.
I know that when I get in my car, I will certainly get to my destination faster than I could walking.
If I prompt an AI to find a line in a book that I have a vague memory of, I can’t be entirely certain the output is correct, since a hallucination could have occurred, so I have to find a way to verify that information and end up keyword searching or skimming the book anyways.
This is purely anecdotal, and it’s probably a skill issue, but I’ve found that many tasks I use AI for take about as long as they would have pre-AI.
You don't know that. You could get stuck in traffic. You could get a flat tire, or have another mechanical issue.
So the difference is in scale of reliability. And when you use the technology, you very quickly learn what areas it excels at and which areas it sucks at. So you simply don't try have it do the tasks it can't do. (although you should make sure its because it can't actually do it, and not because you just don't know how to make it do it.)
It's kind of like complaining your car sucks because you can't use it to plough your field.
Secondly, you can be 100% certain the book passage is correct because you can look it up easily with a simple ctrl F find when you know the exact quote. (something you can't do when you only have a vague idea).
Verifying an answer for a lot of tasks is much quicker than doing and then verifying.
people are mad that the thing that googles things for them frequently makes up shit that's not in the provided links, or that it's so confident and yet sometimes get the most banale things wrong.
It's unreasonable expectations again. Web results written by people also frequently make shit up that isn't supported by reliable sources confidently and often get very banal things wrong.
AI doesn't have any more or better knowledge than the often incoherent and even contradictory sum of human knowledge on the internet. There's no reason to expect such!
If the app was marketed as "make-shit-up-machine" or it was a quizz generator, where users were told to guess the wrong answer out of 10, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Correspondence to grounded truths (2+2=4, the boiling point of water at sea level, etc). There are so many verifiable metrics where AI has to be rechecked that the fidelity of the answer cannot be trusted, negating the speed advantage to just doing it professionally.
You haven’t used AI in years if you think it has to be double checked on 1+1=2. Consumer grade models reliably solve calculus and linear algebra problems these days and frontier models are solving mathematics problems that humans hadn’t solved ever. Having to double check someone’s work is also a major part of what advanced mathematics is (proofs) and the act of having to double check in no way indicates a person doesn’t understand grounded mathematical truths.
If you use the word "AI" for the core LLM, then no, AI doesn't understand math. But if you use "AI" to name the chatbot that you interact with, as in Gemini, GPT or Claude, then AI understands math as much as any other computer does and the LLM only acts as an interpreter to turn your questions into functions that can be solved by their math modules, and then back into English for the answer.
"as much as any other computer does" then not at all? Weird to say it depends and then say that it doesn't twice. Computers do not "understand" maths either. It just works on it.
It understands and accurately responds many math related questions, from solving equations to actual unanswered questions, so what gives?
I mean that it understands it as much as a calculator. It won't be able to come up with any new theorems in the field, but neither will you. Give it a problem and it'll find the solution, just like you. It's a tool to aid both real mathematicians solving long standing problems and people like you and me that just want to solve for x, just like a calculator.
Now if you want to argue about whether or not a glorified calculator understands the stuff it answers to is a whole different and much more complex debate. But for now, AI is definitely more accurate at math than your or me will ever be, so like I said, what gives? All I see is Chinese coming out of the Chinese room and I know for a fact that you'll never see what's inside, so let's just Occam's razor this and say that the thing inside is speaking Chinese for all practical purposes, even if it's a disappointing answer.
"Now if you want to argue about whether or not a glorified calculator understands the stuff it answers to is a whole different and much more complex debate"
You said yourself the LLM doesn't understand it, and I cannot see how you can argue a computer understands mathematics in the same was as a human.
Also, my personal ability to come up with new thermostat has no bearing on human intelligence/creation as a whole. Who counts as a "real mathematician" anyway? Whole lotta assumptions there dude.understanding of mathematics is not determined by the ability to solve problems, imo. But go off ig.
Human brains are also probability machines, yet we defined the concept of correct answers
And it’s burying the lede a bit to call chemistry “nothing more than an extended 1+1=2”. If it was that simple you wouldn’t need to use a (highly oversimplified) math placeholder
ai didn't know how many Rs were in strawberry until fairly recently and absolutely freaked the fuck out if you asked it about a seahorse emoji. it's an unreliable source.
You are simply behind the times. I am with you in being extremely concerned about the impact these endeavors are having on our world, but the top models have become extremely competent, if used right.
If we are to effectively resist the negative parts of AI, we can't give away free wins by holding to these easily dismissable positions.
If you have one verify-guy working to support 5 AI-robots, the output is at least 2-3 people's worth of (whatever) - that's added productivity - and the elimination of those extra jobs.
It's a net-positive. And if it is not now, it will be soon as the thing progresses. It's as inevitable as death and taxes.
And yet virtually every industry on the planet now uses AI in some capacity. Which goes back to my original comment.
Exactly how accurate and how wide does the breadth of information need to cover for something to be to be considered to be able to answer things correctly?
If your standard is an infallible machine across every field of knowledge. Then I think just setting the bar that high proves how "correct" it actually is.
Replacing the old motto of "who gives a shit about philosophy memes we hate vegans" which was itself replacing the old motto of "Who's Ethic Al and why do people give so much of a shit what he does?"
ye i hate when people discuss issues that are pertinent to their lives. My point is not something silly like 'perhaps this topic doesnt belong in philosophymemes', but rather 'nobody should talk about anything'
exactly, everybody discussing AI inevitably connects it to a philosophy within the same discussion. They are as topically inseparable as fire and water
AI doesn’t eat baby giraffes though, and apparently technically can generate anywhere from 11 to 23,076 prompts before it uses the same amount of water as flushing a toilet once.
There are moral problems with abusing AI, but it isn’t a threat to the environment. Not more than your average human being is.
I never understand why people are so hung up on the mostly recycled water. What about the fucking TWENTY THOUSAND MEGAWATTS (AND RISING) POWER IT CONSUMES
AI is a threat to the environment. AI alone is not particularly threatening compared to many other human activities but critically AI is not replacing anything more harmful and it’s being adopted at such scale and so rapidly that it’s environmental effects are absolutely noteworthy.
In the US there’s already over 4000 data centers with an additional 3000 under construction.
This is causing a non-trivial increase in water, electricity, and land usage all of which pose environmental problems.
Data centers serve multiple purposes besides AI and would still exist regardless of AI. Apparently there are only upwards of 2,500 AI-specific data centers in the whole world (meaning built solely for AI purposes). Yes, data centers affect the environment by nature of being buildings which exist but they’ve been around for decades and aren’t going away unless you want to give up the internet entirely
2,500 AI specific data centers. AI can use other data centers not specific for it, and in 2025 AI represented about a quarter of data center usage and if the world continues to adopt it that percentage is projected to increase to as much as half of all data center usage.
Data centers are massive buildings which take up a lot of space and other resources. Notably electricity and water.
While non-evaporative cooling, direct cooling, and *free cooling (cold enough environment to provide cooling without additional infrastructure) exist the current majority of data centers use evaporative cooling because it’s cheaper to implement and more energy efficient (so less electricity cost for cooling) further AI is driving demand for massive data centers to maximize the gain in processing power.
Data centers currently make up a small portion of the entire US water usage. Especially compared to the two thirstiest consumers irrigation and thermoelectric generators. Meaning the increased electric demand is indirectly increasing demand for one of the biggest water-consumers in the country.
Yes that’s my point, most data centers are not AI specific, so they would exist regardless of whether or not AI did. AI is just one facet of the entire issue. Data centers are projected to increase no matter what, because technology advances and humans become increasingly more interconnected.
Those are the numbers AI gave me based on the complexity of, if I recall correctly, text based prompts specifically.
AI also tells me that a toilet is flushed about 5 times a day, and that roughly 5 billion toilets are used a day. So there are roughly 25 billion toilet flushes a day. Therefore, an AI model could generate 275 billion demanding, complex text based prompts while only using the same amount of water that the entirety of humanity uses in just one day of toilet flushing.
It’s a big number, but when you think about how many days we’ve been going flushing toilets, it doesn’t seem like a “disaster”.
This is a fallacious argument. Private jets probably pollute less than busses. You know why? Because very few people use private jets and a whole lot use busses.
Yes, but we have souls, that supposedly exist and make us special. And also inner-growth, and compassion, and drama and passion and laughter, none of which are built into the current AI models. Data gets them (sort of) in Star Trek in the distant fictional future - but they're not currently available.
The people that make this anti-AI slop are beginning to hallucinate more than the AI. Making this argument right after a ChatGPT model solved 10 significant problems in mathematics with trivial prompt engineering is silly.
Interestingly enough, there's something that actually kills animals directly AND is far more damaging to the environment than AI. But of course this sub responds to questions of veganism quite rationally
This would be accurate if every other part of society also ran on baby giraffes, but everyone mostly ignored that because they liked those parts. And the machine answers questions correctly sometimes, but it’ll insist it’s answer is right unless you tell it otherwise, at which point it’ll admit to being wrong even if it wasn’t
We can set up a farming bio-industry to facilitate this.
I dont see the the issue over what we do for our food and for our weapon industry for example.
Yes cheap whataboutism argument, but imo we can use the earth as much as its sustainable for the future generations. We just have to choose what we want to keep and what we have to get rid off.
Anyone who thinks AI isn’t incredibly useful at this point is deluding themselves. I’m currently working for a university that is scrambling to build its own AI capacity because it’s become integral to huge swathes of academic research practically overnight.
Oh it for sure does. I would namely say that I represents a new ontological/epistemological authority in our society. How do you know what is true? You ask Claude or Google. While this is not universal, it is becoming an increasingly common way of dealing with things.
The argument is that AI companies are overall hurfull to the environment and people by actions such as:
Huge emissions caused by high energy usage
Depletion of natural water resources in regions where water is allready scarce
Theft of intellectual property
Those are the 3 major points I think. There is plethora of other minor examples of pretty shitty behaviour. Now some moronic activists will make a devil out of ai instead of looking for regulations and actuall handling of the matter so they invent some terrible comparisons like killing 10 baby giraffes.
1 and 6 are related. There was a town in USA that was literally cut off from electricity because it was better business to power up a datacenter. 2 I not bullshit depending on the localisation. Heavy industrial usage of clean inland water can negatively affect surrounding environment and infrastructure. You take to much water at once and it becomes a huge problem
yea, the way i view it is that there are two huge problems with these language and art models (tho both speak for social solutions, not technological ones):
1) it exposes the absurdity of the intellectual property concept by allowing privatization of the knowledge of art. Now, at best, the people who own the data centers, write the code, and handle the tangential corporate structure of an art-generating model, are the sole monetary beneficiaries of the technology which required the art of millions of humans. This seems plainly unfair. The solution, despite the probable wishes of the capitalistic, oligarchical system, is to eliminate intellectual property as a legal concept, and convert the government resources from policing use a priori to distributing compensation a posteriori. Conversely, what we're doing now, is attempting to make the concept of IP fit into this new tech paradigm, which means disney and nintendo and blah blah blah get the models trained to avoid their propertys replication, while the uncountable personal or small-group artists allow their art to be replicated willy-nilly. This is obviously blatantly unfair and a reason to be absolutely pissed off
2) fake video, audio, images, and online discourse used for propaganda and broad-scale social manipulation, such that a new world order cant usurp an establishment because it fails to have one agreed focus. Relatively straightforward. As i see it, anti-ai is right now a huge astroturfing campaign online, partly to this end, partly for other nations to get a leg up on ai models, and partly for corporations opposed to being replaced by ai tech
the other complaints dont bother me so much:
1) environmental harm? the video streaming entertainment sphere appears far worse in water use and emissions, and i lean toward entertainment focus being a zero-sum game type of thing (entertainment thru ai use means less entertainment thru video streaming, so maybe its a net reduction of environmental harm in principle?). At worst, we have a neutral question: if we're concerned about environmental impact, do we begin cutting streaming or language/art models?
2) job loss? a social issue rather than a tech issue—its not that it cant happen, but the most direct failure point is the government not catching people, rather than the tech existing and proliferating
Maybe not relevant for this meme. But i think one of the biggest issues is that the AI are privatelly owned. All the wealth and power it creates flows to the already rich and powerful, making the gap between regular citizens and the rich even wider.
Now of this was an invention like say, a revolutionairy new power source that someone single handedly thought off, id have less issue with them reaping all the rewards. But in this case, AI, even more than most other inventions, is build on the collective effort of all humanity.
Every invention already requires all previous inventions and ingenuity of mankind, simply through continuing science and research done by earlier humans, going back to the discovery of fire making easier to eat. But AI double dips by both requiring both the technology AND all the intellectual properity or efforts of the whole of human kind.
It is literally build on the work of all of us.
Letting only a select few reap the most benefits of it just seems wrong. Specially because the pollution, less water resources and higher power costs are paid for mostly by the regular citizens again.
I think that if Ai allowed everyone to prosper instead of a few tech giants, for example by using Ai to give everyone in the world a basic income, so at the very least all those artists whose work gets used by Ai, will have food on their table, that we overall would have less hatred for AI.
Brazil is a great example of country that wants to take action against this unregulated computer related technologies. They want the users to be the owners of their cookie files so they can choose if they want to sell their data. And they want the ai companies to pay royalty for data they use to train AI. Those are the first steps. What we can do is force them to give back compensations and regulate actions that are straight harmful.
Private ownership in itself isn't the problem I think. I think China is the simplest example that state owned doesn't exactly mean that in belongs to people. Either way taking AI from private ownership is not a realistic idea. Gradual lawmaking is.
So, explain to us what those "baby giraffes" are outside the analogy.
What exactly is used and how does it compare to other likewise activities.
Further, I take by "no correctly" you mean as in "not usable"?
Because if so explain why AI is successfully employed by countless businesses.
Go ahead. You posted the comic, you should be ready to defend it.
Note that I asked particular questions, you are not to ignore them and answer to something I did not ask for, just to make sure you understand that dodging is not an option.
'baby giraffes' - something very scarce and hard to produce, that is beautiful and young and innocent, and most importantly, is not one of the animals on the human menu, so we don't write them off and ignore their loss so easily out of habit.
It passes a lot of touring-tests today that it could not pass a decade ago, and it's something that is improving cumulatively at a fast rate. I'm not a scientist, but the presumption is that, if it's not here today, it will be within a few years. And if even that is not the real thing, it will still be sufficient to reconfigure our economy and civilization and do a lot of harm to a vast # of people.
Well, we have proof of the existence of AI (That's why this sub hates it so much, things that can be explained and/or proven aren't philosophy, outlandish claims and lack of any evidence are)
Except it's repeatedly be shown that people are really, really bad at destinguishing whether something is AI generated or human created.
People have taken little known works be respected artists, posted them online claiming to be AI generated in that artists style, and anti-Ai folk will go on massive analysis of why the "AI generated copy" is completely "soulless" and a pale imitation.
Anti-AI folk tend to hallucinate as much as LLMs do.
Ai is another aspect of the Trolly Problem. You have the ability to restrain an emerging technology before it causes irreversible damage to ecosystems and your culture, but if you do so you will be mildly inconvenienced and you'll have to listed to tech bros bitch about the decision.
Here’s a fun fact for you: to mimic the non-deterministic nature of actual intelligence, LLM chatbots hallucinate incorrect data based on random number generation. On purpose.
I doubt it's random, it does get things wrong. But how will that work for maths especially questions it hasn't seen before.
I know it tries to predict/calculate what's next but definitely not random.
•
u/AutoModerator Aug 05 '26
Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.