You can care about the environment and also think some arguments in favor of your position are bullshit. I didn’t flag it, but I left a critical comment elsewhere explaining why I think it’s bullshit.

That explains why miserable mistral is a pile of garbage

Animal farming uses significantly more resources than almond farming across almost every major category, that includes land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and overall energy footprint.

Animal farming is a far greater user of resources by far and is a top 3 contributor to breaching every planetary boundary.

It also has an easily replaceable alternative that would reduce farmland use by 50% , massively reduce water use, eliminate one of the top contributor to climate change, and at little to no cost.

A glass of cow’s milk costs weeks worth of the average AI user’s resource usage.

So you’re right that we have far better options to tackle before we even start worrying about AI.

AI does have a particularly high local impact, due to concentrating so much of the world’s AI energy use into the land on which the data center is located, so that is a real issue to be dealt with, but that’s largely a regulatory and management issue.

> Now do Netflix and YouTube! How about golf courses, almond farming, and Disneyworld?

these are bad examples, because it would be good if they were all gone, except almond farming in areas naturally hospitable to almonds.

There is a point where this kind of a pragmatic/contrarian take doesn't stick anymore. Is the net benefit of AI worth the cost of losing natural resources for billions? That's the question you're supposed to ponder, like, it's actually up in the air and not clear cut?

X is terrible, so don’t address Y is an awful way of framing any issue.

Netflix and YouTube probably are orders of magnitude less than the alternative of driving to plays and movie theaters. Most golf courses use recycled water, albeit the opportunity cost is real. Almond farming is fair.

Okay, but this summary of the UN report is emphatically not "only looking at the downside". From the piece:

"“This report is not a case against artificial intelligence, a technological transformation that is improving the lives of billions of people around the world,” said Professor Kaveh Madani, Director of UNU-INWEH who led the investigation team. “It is a call for using it responsibly and addressing its unintended impacts proactively to make it sustainable and equitable.”"

It is impossible to judge of the net benefit is worth the cost if you don't know the cost. More specifically, "The report finds that AI’s environmental cost is being systematically mismeasured."

Its key policy messages even include: "AI within planetary limits is achievable. The report’s central argument is constructive. Capability and stewardship can grow together, but only with measurement, transparency, and shared responsibility across the ecosystem."

You can also see it's not anti-AI by how it argues, for example: "Governments should integrate AI infrastructure into energy planning, water governance, and land-use permitting, and require standardized environmental footprint reporting."

The report itself praises AI even more, calling it "a defining technology of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, moving societies beyond digitization toward the optimization and automation of complex systems", along with an overview of its transformational benefits.

this is a poor argument

there have been plenty of articles about golf courses being a threat to water sources; just because golf courses haven't been closed doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about the threat posed by AI. You're still free to crusade against golf courses if you like.

>Now do Netflix and YouTube! How about golf courses, almond farming, and Disneyworld?

Don't threaten my communist soul with a good time.

>Everything has a downside attached.

Yes. Let's regulate that, please.

>The point is never "Let's stop this because it's bad for the planet", but "Is the net benefit worth the cost?"

Sure. The answer is 'no, it isn't '. These frontier models purposefully chose the most power guzzling, moat digging approach and it was not necessary whatsoever.

> but there are things we ought to stop doing long before we come for AI.

Sure, let's get to it. As well as with AI at the same time.

> if you're only looking at the downside then you're being dishonest. (...) "Is the net benefit worth the cost?"

Is any benefit worth the cost of killing the world? The article proposes a series of recommendations for investors in the "roadmap for sustainability and equity", because the conversation isn't if the benefits of AI are worth the costs, but if we are able to pay these costs at all plan the required infrastructure improvements -- which are always done with taxpayer money regardless of how neoliberal the society claims to be -- in order to accommodate the expansion of AI without massive disruptions.

My son does this. Points out all the issues in the world that I didn't address when I point something he's done. It's a childlike response insisting that either we talk about everything or nothing.

Weird take.

> That could still be a no for AI, but there are things we ought to stop doing long before we come for AI.

Hard to have that discussion if these are the responses.

How about instead of sewing FUD and justifying one evil by pointing at others, we actually gave a damn about the world we’re creating.

People act like doing things that are good for the environment is inherently lacking in economic value. My Dad’s environmental consulting business put me through college, while doing good things for the environment and people, and that is really small scale stuff. And his primary customer was a bank wishing to avoid lending on contaminated sites.

There could absolutely be massive money to be made in doing good things for the environment, it is the people making money doing bad things for the environment who do their damndest to keep grasp on the wheel and subvert any attempt to make doing good things for the environment economically advantageous.

These people are virtually selling their children’s future for a few extra bucks today. The earth is going to be around for a long time yet. We should care about our children, grandchildren and so on.

Golf is largely self-regulating though; there is not a huge quantity of VC money going into golf courses. As more people find golf boring, there are fewer golf courses because the economics of running a failing golf course vs. selling to developers are too obvious.

Golf courses are not booking revenue by exchanging shares in themselves to other golf courses in exchange for golf balls that have not been manufactured yet.

Thinking AI is particularly bad (or even that large) compared to other uses of water, electricity, and land is the real AI psychosis.

Or alfalfa, which uses ~6 trillion liters per year in California alone. Essentially none of it is eaten by humans, and a large fraction gets exported to China and Japan to feed livestock there.

We can do two things: limit almond farming and limit AI water usage.

> So I vote we just ban almonds. Problem solved!

I'm pretty sure if we had an actually vote between banning AI data centers and banning almond farming, one would win by a landslide. I'm actually confident that if some hypothetical community had absolutely no water or energy problems they would vote against having the AI data center built.

Humans need to eat. Humans don't need AI. We're consuming too much in general and this speculative bubble is making consumption skyrocket with questionable gains for humanity.

Almonds are tasty. AI on the other hand….

Then feel free to lobby for a data center in your community; and then let me know how your tap water is.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but does the waste water from almond farms come out as toxic and hazardous for where they eventually end up in?

It has been an issue for decades. So what? It isn't like ignoring the topic will make it go away.

The report I read does outline the advantages, starting off in the executive summary, after the AI-generate image, with:

"Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a defining technology of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, moving societies beyond digitization toward the optimization and automation of complex systems. AI systems that learn, perceive, reason, and generate content are now embedded across economies and daily lives, supporting services from translation and recommendations to finance, healthcare, energy management, and transportation."

It later says:

"""... AI enables tasks ranging from data processing and translation to diagnosis, forecasting, and autonomous decision-making. Today, AI can analyze massive datasets in seconds, translate languages, detect diseases from medical scans, forecast climate trends, and power everything from personalized recommendations to self-driving cars.

By executing complex operations at speeds and scales far beyond human capacity, AI is more than just a technological tool—it is a transformative force. It is reshaping economies, redefining labor, and influencing how societies interact with technology and with the planet. As AI’s influence accelerates, so too does the urgency to understand its full impact: not only the promise it offers, but also the profound challenges it raises.

AI is a powerful driver of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR)1, or Industry 4.0—a global transformation marked by the convergence of digital, physical, and biological systems. Propelled by rapid advances in everything from AI and robotics to cloud computing and the Internet of Things (IoT), this revolution is reconfiguring how people live, work, and are governed. Yet while much attention has been given to AI’s capabilities and risks, including bias, misinformation, and automation leading to loss of jobs, far less focus has been placed on AI’s environmental impact.

... The launch of ChatGPT in 2022 was nothing short of a technological shockwave. ... Once a niche technology, AI is now woven into daily life, powering much of the digital world, including voice assistants, search engines, recommendation systems, smart energy meters, and smartphones. The influence of AI is transforming how people work, communicate, access information, and consume services. ... AI is employed in diagnostics, medical imaging, and patient risk prediction—improving speed and precision of care, while reducing treatment costs. ... AI helps forecast demand, manage power grids, and integrate renewable sources into power networks. ... AI is also revolutionizing transportation and mobility."""

Could you clarify how that's not a good outline of the advantages, and elaborate what specifically you think is fear-mongering?

What in this report is making your reduce your trust in UN?

How so?