Agreed.
Now, I suggest reading through all of this to note that I am not a fan of tech bros, that I do want this to be a bubble. Then also note what else I'm saying despite all that.
To me, it is self-evident. The various projects I have created by simply asking for them, are so. I have looked at the source code they produce, and how this has changed over time: Last year I was describing them as "junior" coders, by which I meant "fresh hire"; now, even with the same title, I would say "someone who is just about to stop being a junior".
> "The oppressed need to acknowledge that their oppression is useful to their oppressors."
The capacity for AI to oppress you is in direct relation to its economic value.
> How is it useful to you that this tech is so power hungry that environmental externalities are being further accelerated while regular people's utility costs are raising to cover the increased demand(whether they use the tech to "code" or "manifest art")?
The power hunger is in direct proportion to the demand. Someone burning USD 20 to get Claude Code tokens has consumed approximately USD 10 of electricity in that period, with the other USD 10 having been spread between repaying the model training cost and the server construction cost.
The reason they're willing to spend USD 20 is to save at least US 20 worth of dev time. This was already the case with the initial version of ChatGPT pro back in the day, when it could justify that by saving 23 dev minutes per month. There's around a million developers in the USA, just that group increasing electricity spending by USD 10/month will put a massive dent on the USA's power grid.
Gets worse though. Based on my experience, using Claude Code optimally, when you spend USD 20 you get at least 10 junior sprints' worth of output. Hiring a junior for 10 sprints is, what, USD 30,000? The bound here is "are you able to get value from having hired 1,500 juniors for the price of one?"
One can of course also waste those tokens. Both because nobody needs slop, and because most people can't manage one junior never mind 1500 of them.
However, if the economy collectively answers "yes", then the environmental externalities expand until you can't afford to keep your fridge cold or your lights on.
This is one of the failure modes of the technological singularity that people like me have been forewarning about for years, even when there's no alignment issues within the models themselves. Which there are, because Musk's one went and called itself Mecha Hitler, while being so sycophantic about Musk himself that it called him the best at everything even when the thing was "drinking piss", which would be extremely funny if he wasn't selling this to the US military.
> How is it useful to you that this tech is so compute hungry that they are seemingly ending the industry of personal compute to feed this tech's demand?
This will pass. Either this is a bubble, it pops, the manufacturers return to their roots; or it isn't because it works as advertised, which means it leads to much higher growth rates, and we (us, personally, you and me) get personal McKendree cylinders each with more compute than currently exists… or we get turned into the raw materials for those cylinders.
I assume the former. But I say that as one who wants it to be the former.
> How is it useful to you that this tech is so water hungry that it is emptying drinking water acquifers?
Is it what's emptying drinking water acquifers?
The combined water usage of all data centers in Arizona. All of them. Together. Which is over 100 DCs. All of them combined use about double what Tesla was expecting from just the Brandenburg Gigafactory to use before Musk decided to burn his reputation with EV consumers and Europeans for political point scoring.
> How is it useful to you that this tech is being used to manufacture consent?
This is one of the objectively bad things, though it's hard to say if this is more or less competent at this than all the other stuff we had three years ago, given the observed issues with the algorithmic feeds.