I despise armchair libertarians and Substack "intellectualism" as much as the next guy, but your comment doesn't offer any pushback to the claim being made.
I don't engage with the "firehose of falsehood" types of articles as it's a losing battle. This guy's is a high school teacher whose side-gig is churning out pro-AI content for validation.
I simply disregard the entire article since I know the author's MO, and I inform other HN members of it.
So basically you're asking everyone to just trust you, a random commentator that provides no evidence or sourcing, over an article written with extensive sourcing, details, and explanations?
You might be the correct person here, but you're not going to convince anyone like this.
>The developer, Quality Technology Services, owed nearly $150,000 for using more than 29 million gallons of unaccounted-for water.
>The company said its water consumption was so high last year because of temporary construction-related activities, such as concrete work, dust control and site preparation.
I do find it interesting that the framing is "a data center" used a bunch of water if it really is "manufacturing concrete uses a bunch of water."
Different source and event, same misleading headline as the one mentioned in the parent article.
I think that largely depends on how you engage with the internet. To continue the metaphor, the internet has an absurdly high noise floor, but it’s easily filtered noise. So if you do that filtering you’re actually left with a pretty high SNR.
I think it's harmful & a turn off to frame what is a big huge general human issue as political, as party line stuff.
There's a ton of reasons that are very very sensible to be very pissed off about AI. People very rarely benefit from human support staff being turned into chatbot AI. The unyielding limited mechanized systems we are forced to interact with suck.
And the billionaires themselves are so loudly advertising that the purpose of these things is to replace people. To obsolete so much labor. When it's so clear they suck, in so many ways. That people are upset is not just "the party line".
I've gone on about AI (even though I personally love it & think it's a miracle, having help in life I never thought I would get). But I don't want to fixate on AI. The sociological effect here, of how people constantly hunt for basically parallel constructions for what they want to believe: that's such a major factor in understanding people and societal forces. I think you're really smashing your ability to think to bits to chalk this up as "the party line". It's such a deeper more interesting force than than.
It again just goes to ai, which I think is not by point, but man what a moment of people seeking their existing biases: the "AI generated Monet" painting that actually is in fact a real Monet (Water Lilies). People went to town!
https://bsky.app/profile/segyges.bsky.social/post/3mlsgc53ry...
This effect deeply deeply deeply predates the internet. I think perhaps yes there is a little more biting sarcasm & anger & negative energies that have infected us, by being exposed to so much attention-driven systems where negative energies rule! But this chasing your existing beliefs has been around probably since before the dawn of man. I'd put money in it.
As it was with "campus protests violate free speech!" from the folks who immediately turned around and banned voluntary diversity programs at universities.
As it was with "Twitter bans violate free speech" from the folks who bought it and banned @elonjet and the word cisgender.
Because it's incredibly frustrating to see the government remove women and men of colour from government websites, deleting climate data, and sending out violent mobs to round people up while people sit around saying their main worry is that regulatory bodies will move to make things "too woke." There's no "woke" equivalent to the insanity being acted out by the US administration.
If someone breaks into my car and a Flock camera sees it, is their right to privacy in a public space more important than my right to not have my property get stolen?
I also thought it was interesting that the author basically argues Flock cameras are too effective at figuring out where criminals are, but then also argues they aren’t effective enough at reducing crime.
> "Andy Masley is nothing but a libertarian AI shill writing on substack and his thoughts should not be taken into consideration on this topic."
Andy Masley is nothing but a <person I disagree with> and his thoughts should not be taken into consideration on this topic.
reply