• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AI... Is not objectively bad.

Dassier

Dassier

Official Maga Target
Joined
Jul 30, 2025
Messages
46
Reaction score
44
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I know, i know, it uses water but hear me out
According to food and water watch, AI uses 720 billion gallons of water anually. That is a lot. But lets make a quick comparison.
How much water does the textile industry use, for instance?
93 billion cubic meters of water annually...
That being...
24568 billion gallons of water each year.
According to earth.org, 92 million tonnes out of the 100 million garments produced each year end up in landfills.
That meaning, out of 24568 billion gallons of water used in the textile industry, 22602.56 are objectively wasted with no use other than to fill landfills.
Now lets compare that use of water (pollutting the enviroment to fuel fashion trends) to the possible research potential of AI.
A survey conducted on researchers by McKinsey Global yielded that a staggering 92% of researchers believe AI will help rapidly increase the volume of scholarly research, while 87% anticipate it will improve overall work quality.
This on top of the increasibly real possibility of a AI quantum supercomputer, that would be able to solve problems and equations that the most scholar minds can only begin to comprehend.
In the end, there is quite literally endless potential in AI, at least for now, and i find that complaining about the fact it uses water equivalent to 3.18547987% of the water used on clothes that end up in landfills is baffling.
Especially considering the people that complain the most about AI are the same to buy from places like Temu and Shein, that are so very incredibly wasteful.
Let me know your opinions.
 
Dassier said:
I know, i know, it uses water but hear me out
According to food and water watch, AI uses 720 billion gallons of water anually. That is a lot. But lets make a quick comparison.
How much water does the textile industry use, for instance?
93 billion cubic meters of water annually...
That being...
24568 billion gallons of water each year.
According to earth.org, 92 million tonnes out of the 100 million garments produced each year end up in landfills.
That meaning, out of 24568 billion gallons of water used in the textile industry, 22602.56 are objectively wasted with no use other than to fill landfills.
Now lets compare that use of water (pollutting the enviroment to fuel fashion trends) to the possible research potential of AI.
A survey conducted on researchers by McKinsey Global yielded that a staggering 92% of researchers believe AI will help rapidly increase the volume of scholarly research, while 87% anticipate it will improve overall work quality.
This on top of the increasibly real possibility of a AI quantum supercomputer, that would be able to solve problems and equations that the most scholar minds can only begin to comprehend.
In the end, there is quite literally endless potential in AI, at least for now, and i find that complaining about the fact it uses water equivalent to 3.18547987% of the water used on clothes that end up in landfills is baffling.
Especially considering the people that complain the most about AI are the same to buy from places like Temu and Shein, that are so very incredibly wasteful.
Let me know your opinions.
Click to expand...
It would help if you sourced your material and used proper math styles. You post comes off as just an ill informed rant.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It would help if you sourced your material and used proper math styles. You post comes off as just an ill informed rant.
Click to expand...
According to earth.org
Click to expand...
A survey conducted on researchers by Mckinsey Global
Click to expand...
I can state each and every one of my sources, but i thought you'd be capable of fact checking me on at least half of my statements. Seeing your posts i see a distinct lack of citations if any at all.
 
Dassier said:
I can state each and every one of my sources, but i thought you'd be capable of fact checking me on at least half of my statements. Seeing your posts i see a distinct lack of citations if any at all.
Click to expand...
I don't waste my time with such things. If you are going to be lazy and not give a source link, I treat it as typical propaganda.

Earth dot org is an activist site. The probability of them having accurate and unbiased data is rather low. You gave the site, but not the specific link. Searches do not give me your source.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I don't waste my time with such things. If you are going to be lazy and not give a source link, I treat it as typical propaganda.

Earth dot org is an activist site. The probability of them having accurate and unbiased data is rather low. You gave the site, but not the specific link. Searches do not give me your source.
Click to expand...
Activist sites are about as accurate as any of the thousands of relatively unknown magazines cited on this site.
And also, by your logic, would anything that doesnt cite a source to each and every fact like
"Bread contains carbohidrates, according to the WHO"
Would that be propaganda?
 
Dassier said:
Activist sites are about as accurate as any of the thousands of relatively unknown magazines cited on this site.
And also, by your logic, would anything that doesnt cite a source to each and every fact like
"Bread contains carbohidrates, according to the WHO"
Would that be propaganda?
Click to expand...
You still did not link the material.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom