I don’t accept AI implementation as a green product, and when the “green AI” they advertise is a special, low complexity opt-IN model I feel like I’m being bamboozled on two separate levels.
Your comment reads as if you don’t want them to offer AI, but if they do offer it then you want it to be either Opt-out or no opt out, and that you would prefer it to be a resource hungry AI at that. Is that what you meant to say? Because otherwise I don’t understand.
They could offer AI served off of a single RaspberryPi3 powered by a 2 gigawatt solar installation and the anti-AI crowd would find some other angle to attack it. The goal is to get people to think ‘AI Bad’, not any of the other strawmen that they stand up.
Nonsense. I run my own home hosted Ollama
AI server 24/7. But I don’t claim it to be green tech in any way. Talk about strawman, I don’t see any claims regarding the worth of AI, perhaps I missed it?
Fun fact, smaller model LLMs can run on Pi5 at not untolerable speed. Could work on solar I suppose.
You’re focusing on their use of AI, and that doesn’t make sense. AI is a technology that exists. Search engines and RAG is one of the better ways to use it. They are a search engine, why would they not use it?
They’ve planted over 200 million trees, produce twice as much energy than they consume and have given over €90 million to green causes. They’re a non-profit company that gives 100% of their profits towards green initiatives, planting trees and investing in solar. It’s hardly greenwashing.
What does the power usage of their search engine services matter if they’re producing more energy than they consume? Your complaint just doesn’t make sense.
No, I’m focusing on the hypocrisy of calling it green. A lot of other people are focusing on the AI tech though.
They’re a non-profit company that gives 100% of their profits
That’s not how non-profit profits work. 100% of the surplus might be invested in green causes but that’s after operating costs, salaries and a plethora of minor expense posts are handled using their profit/income.
It’s hardly greenwashing.
If legitimizing polluting technology by saying we’re doing such a great job at combating pollution isn’t green washing, perhaps I’ve misunderstood the term? It was certainly used against the billionaires flying to climate conferences, their argument was that they did such an important job for the environment that they should be able to fly private jets to the meetings. Others called it a green washing of their personal travel arrangements.
Your complaint just doesn’t make sense.
That’s OK, I’m not too bothered about being understood by every single person I come in contact with. Sometimes the divide between worldviews is simply too big to try to bridge.
I don’t accept AI implementation as a green product, and when the “green AI” they advertise is a special, low complexity opt-IN model I feel like I’m being bamboozled on two separate levels.
Your comment reads as if you don’t want them to offer AI, but if they do offer it then you want it to be either Opt-out or no opt out, and that you would prefer it to be a resource hungry AI at that. Is that what you meant to say? Because otherwise I don’t understand.
I don’t want them to greenwash AI. So as long as a self-professed green company provides a claimed green AI I don’t agree with them.
They could offer AI served off of a single RaspberryPi3 powered by a 2 gigawatt solar installation and the anti-AI crowd would find some other angle to attack it. The goal is to get people to think ‘AI Bad’, not any of the other strawmen that they stand up.
Nonsense. I run my own home hosted Ollama AI server 24/7. But I don’t claim it to be green tech in any way. Talk about strawman, I don’t see any claims regarding the worth of AI, perhaps I missed it?
Fun fact, smaller model LLMs can run on Pi5 at not untolerable speed. Could work on solar I suppose.
You’re focusing on their use of AI, and that doesn’t make sense. AI is a technology that exists. Search engines and RAG is one of the better ways to use it. They are a search engine, why would they not use it?
They’ve planted over 200 million trees, produce twice as much energy than they consume and have given over €90 million to green causes. They’re a non-profit company that gives 100% of their profits towards green initiatives, planting trees and investing in solar. It’s hardly greenwashing.
What does the power usage of their search engine services matter if they’re producing more energy than they consume? Your complaint just doesn’t make sense.
No, I’m focusing on the hypocrisy of calling it green. A lot of other people are focusing on the AI tech though.
That’s not how non-profit profits work. 100% of the surplus might be invested in green causes but that’s after operating costs, salaries and a plethora of minor expense posts are handled using their profit/income.
If legitimizing polluting technology by saying we’re doing such a great job at combating pollution isn’t green washing, perhaps I’ve misunderstood the term? It was certainly used against the billionaires flying to climate conferences, their argument was that they did such an important job for the environment that they should be able to fly private jets to the meetings. Others called it a green washing of their personal travel arrangements.
That’s OK, I’m not too bothered about being understood by every single person I come in contact with. Sometimes the divide between worldviews is simply too big to try to bridge.
I don’t want them to greenwash AI. So as long as a self-professed green company provides a claimed green AI I don’t agree with them.