> "AI energy usage" is a convenient scapegoat not backed by data.

Except it's not what I said.

What I said is that with AI, we do more with more (energy). "Doing more" has repercussions that go further than just the energy used to vibe code.

The reason we are measurably living in a mass extinction (that is happening orders of magnitudes faster than the one that made the dinosaurs disappear) is also the reason the climate is measurably warming (to the point where it will probably kill many of us): we are really good at producing more by using more energy.

It's not one thing (like airplanes, or meat, or whatever you want): it's everywhere. It's the whole race for producing more and more. AI is exactly part of that.

Looking at the direct energy consumption of a technology (here AI) while conveniently ignoring all its indirect impacts and concluding that "I can't understand why people think that tech is part of the problem" shows a big lack of understanding of... well, what will probably kill your kids, most likely theirs.

I'm starting to get to the point where I'll only listen to AI energy use critiques if the commentator tells me up front they abstain from all forms of social media, especially video-based social media, first.

If the current admin wasn't waging a war on the renewables they don't have personal investments in and propping up their own AI investments energy needs with revitalized fossil fuel barons while they get in on the new pie-in-the-sky "future" energy sources the tech oligarchs point to (nuclear fusion startups) in order to at least get rich if an alternative fuel source they actually invested in pans out, I could perhaps reconsider the notion that this comment isn't worth the pixel it's colored on.