They are wrong, and they must be stopped. We are close to the point of no return on doing irreversible damage to the planet, I do not care if people like the jangly Claude keys
>We are close to the point of no return on doing irreversible damage to the planet
No we aren't, it's a planet. Humans are still far from being able to to anything to a planet. Humans are changing the environment. There is no evidence to suggest it is irreversible, the planet has been much hotter, a snowball, it has had much much higher CO2 levels, it would be ridiculous to claim that the eath could not someday return to an equilibrium where it sat at pte-industrial times. I'd be hesitant to say categorically that Venus could never become a temperate climate through natural causes.
The reality is that climate change is occurring and it will cause significant impact upon humanity, and many species. The only sense in which this is irreversible is that humans lack the capacity to counteract this change in a timeframe that is relevant to people living.
This has already happened, the degree to which this change will occur is the only parameter we can now influence.
AI models have a negligible impact on the global environment. Water use is a regional concern, the water isn't leaving the planet. Approximately one third of the CO2 emissions caused by humans comes from electricity generation. This number is increasing, this is intended because it is assuming the workload of greater CO2 emitters. At the same time electricity generation is emitting less CO2 per KWh every year.
The increase in renewable and nuclear power in 2025 exceeded the total growth of electricity supply.
Data centers, of which AI is a subset used 1.5% of global electricity.
AI is part of a small part of a small part of CO2 emissions, but more importantly, over a quite short timeframe. It is using the energy supply that is trending in the right direction. Renewables are outpacing growth.
You are making hyperbolic claims that have little basis in reality. You may be angry about the state of the world, but expressing it like this is only making the work more difficult for those actually working on the problems.
Your argument devolved to.
I'm right, they're wrong, and I don't care about others.
With that attitude you could be president of the United States.
I am not making anything more difficult for anyone, this type of defense of your precious AI is though. You should personally go tell the kids in Memphis that are breathing the air from Elon's generators about the percentage of global electricity AI uses
In you most recent comment you manage to accuse me of denialism and holding AI to be precious.
Yet the message you responded to contains the text "The reality is that climate change is occurring and it will cause significant impact upon humanity, and many species"
As for AI, I'm not sure if I said anything to suggest I hold AI in high esteem, my argument was strictly related to your inaccuracies and your beliefs that others should cede to your will.
Your last part seems just irrational. I addressed a claim of global impact. Not individual instances of local harm.
Would you ask a car owner to apologise to the families of everyone killed in a car accident? It doesn't make sense.
Read the IEA report for 2025 and 2026. If you find that I have said something inaccurate about the global impact, I would be more than happy to be corrected, I don't want to win an argument here, I want things to move towards the truth.
Just take a breath and think about what you are writing. You are making exaggerated claims and imagining far stronger positions in others than what they say. It's amplifying in both directions.
Phrases like "You should personally go tell the kids..." Is projecting a kind of malice onto others. It is a form of rhetoric that you seem to turn to often. I think you could benefit from reminding yourself that most people do not act out of malice as a matter of course.