Once again, they make no primary claims. All they do is cite other papers.

Great!

Now, where in the paper did you find the primary claims about water consumption?

(There are none. You didn’t read the paper)

I mean, I’m certain that if you consider there to be many reputable scientific publications having studies to the contrary, you should at least be able to post a single one, right?

As opposed to your vibes?

Time for One Child (at least)-policy

I suggest you read the article I posted, or if you don’t feel like reading, maybe listening to what’s being said in the YouTube video.

There are some very real concerns with everything happening around AI. Water is quite simply not one of them. Focus your energy on criticisms based in reality.

Energy use is a more real concern, yes.

The water-thing is mostly bullshit, see https://andymasley.substack.com/p/empire-of-ai-is-wildly-misleading / https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_c6MWk7PQc

The management team can lead by example and forgo their salaries in that case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n3pFFPSlW4

A la chucha con este puto weón

I think that was the joke

You’re going to be sabotaging yourself if you don’t use Android Studio.

We get encouraged to try out AI tools for various purposes to see where we can find value out of them, if any. There are some use-cases where the tech makes sense when wielded correctly, and in those cases I make use of it. In other cases, I don’t.

So far, I suspect we may be striking a decent balance. I have however noticed a concern trend of people copy-pasting unfiltered slop as a response to various scenarios, which is obviously not helpful.

Non-engineering positions

Big tech pays large amounts of money. This is why people choose to work there.

I have figured it out: many of them.

Great! I salute your rigour in the matter. How many of them was it?

And no, Amnesty did not produce a significant amount of primary evidence. You’re just straight up lying now.

There are 430 hits for “Amnesty International interview” as sources.

Who knows, maybe they just interviewed Adrian Zenz for all of those claims. The joke would very much be on me in that case

Feel free to figure that part out. At a cursory glance, a not-insignificant part was information sourced directly by Amnesty.

Is Amnesty International a fundamentalist right wing organization, captured by Adrian Zenz?

They do cite him five times in their report on the subject, but their report does contain a total of 718 sources.

This is not to say that their report should be treated as uncritically correct, but neither should their claims be dismissed outright because of an anticommunist having been a part of doing research on the subject.

To illustrate - Candace Owens, a well known right-wing agitator and all-round piece of shit frequently speaks out against Israel. This does not, very obviously not, make Israel good.

Acutely relatable trait