I don't think I've ever seen people query with such fervour; the energy usage of our existing internet structure. or supply chains to provide us all with electronic devices, despite them being inherently problematic in similar ways.

I was in a British supermarket today and there were apples on the shelves that were transported there from New Zealand. Again, no protests. Do we really care about energy usage or do we simply find convenient ammunition to attack ideas that we are already apprehensive about? We live in a world that is overheating as a consequence of the energy bounty of fossil fuels and yet people are still driving cars, SUVs are more popular than ever. There is no global carbon tax in sight while every nation on the planet slinks from their responsibility for all the co2 in the atmosphere, blaming each other and charging towards our scientist's worst case outcomes. So who really cares about energy consumption on its own?

For example, nobody cared about data centre water or electricity use when it was serving us up cat pictures. Collectively the past 20 years of doing that is still significantly more use than AI data centres so far. We suddenly care about it because its anti-AI ammunition, not because we care.

That's broad strokes as each member has an individual vote.

Its not a good point, its whining about change and service providers offering change.

When I use reasonably recent models they can give me some fantastic output and do pretty much _exactly_ what I want. I assume when they don't, then that it's my fuck up tbh.

Good bot.

I think OP is a good case in point where people are blaming AI but really the issue here is the human in the loop, the person implementing these abhorrent policies that happen to be powered by AI.

I would expect companies to blend shit metrics with AI systems, if not at Kaiser then at other places. People lack imagination and using AI to monitor your workforce has to be one of the possibly worst ways to use it. Alternatively some dickhead will "lean startup" their way into measuring "performance" in such a way with the "help" of AI that they will do something even worse.

It's not just a talking point (see ded comment below), every time we try to publicly survey to implement traffic calming ideas in our city (UK) its a stalemate between in towners and out of towners. Usually the crowds turn up to alternating ballots which is fun. Only thing that upsets me is out of towners talking like literally nobody wants it, which clearly isn't true.

I mean if your commitment to climate change or air quality in cities ends at charging people with vehicles that pollute more to enter the city: then did you have any in the first place?

How is ulez unpopular? Its geographical, age or class axis. In some places: like the cities, its extremely popular and extremely unpopular in other places: just outside the cities, especially for people who can't afford electric vehicles. Just cos some people vandalise the cameras, don't make it inherently popular or not. Its just that a very few _really_ don't like it, to the extent they're willing to smash stuff up.

> give away solar panels and two way heat pumps to low-income families, tax the profits of oil and gas companies, enforce right to repair, remove tariffs on chinese car makers if they create jobs in europe, fund train networks to get tickets cheaper than flying, invest in renewable energy to make electricity cheap... there are easy ways to offload that to the rich.

The basic issue remains that if we don't punish people relative to their burning of carbon then we're never gonna deal with climate change. One human can undo the hard work of many in one casual or selfish act. By the sound of international debate on the subject we should probably be investing in geo-engineering instead if we care for outcomes.

For all the presumed benefits of a populist green movement, I doubt it would actually care enough about the root issue and easily yield to self-interest. Every electorate-level conversation about climate change always starts and ends with talking about someone _else's_ carbon usage, never our own. As a species we're simply not mature enough to note what habits we've deeply embedded in our culture that are inherently problematic, like supermarkets.

Estimates are considerably longer, QA is much harder, integration is full of buckets and rakes, some "senior" devs are afraid to touch stale core code, innovation is stifled, devs are frustrated, hiring is harder, attrition bites. The most frustrating thing is that its very hard to communicate the issues as everyone experiences a fragment of the pain and none of it lines up in a spreadsheet for anyone to appreciate the whole cost. Everything just sucks.

LLMs changing the economy of this sounds great, especially if removes the essential issue with the ground up rewrite, which is the "ground up" part.