You know that I am mostly concerned with the way the "AI" hype is making global warming worse.
Most people are likely more concerned about economic harms, such as:
- "AI" is depressing wages and income because employers or customers can now claim your skills are worth less, and that you should be more productive [1,2]
- "AI" is causing unemployment, not because it is replacing workers but because companies fund their investment in "AI" by reducing their workforce. [3]
(1/3) #AI #NoToAI
- "AI" is pushing up prices of consumer electronics because the "AI" companies are cornering the semiconductor manufacturing market. [4]
- "AI" is pushing up consumer electricity and water bills [5,6]
- In fact, according to the Goldman Sachs [7], "AI" is causing inflation and depressing consumer spending and economic growth.
(2/3)
So tell me why we should *not* be critical of "AI"?
And I have not even mentioned societal and cognitive harms.
References for the above claims:
[1] https://www.iese.edu/insight/articles/artificial-intelligence-junior-employees-wages/
[2] https://www.mckinsey.com/uk/our-insights/the-mckinsey-uk-blog/ai-uneven-effects-on-uk-jobs-and-talent
[4] https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/27/tech/ai-memory-chips-smartphones-intl-hnk
[5] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2025-ai-data-centers-electricity-prices/
[6] https://www.consumerreports.org/data-centers/ai-data-centers-impact-on-electric-bills-water-and-more-a1040338678/
(3/3)
@wim_v12e I hate how most AI commentary that even manages to include climate impactd tends to say "but if we ignore all that ..." as a way to focus on other concerns/benefits. Almost no one ever acknowledges that we shouldn't be ignoring all that. We already on the cliff of having ignored or procrastinated for too long that change needs to be drastic. Drastically worse is the last thing we should ignore.
These short term effects are real and also the easy version of the problems we will face.
Wim🧮
Brett R