For what it’s worth: yes, it’s not technically true, but the reason it’s sticking around is because it conveys a deeply felt (and actually true) sentiment that many many people have: the output of generative AI isn’t worth the input.
Well, it more demonstrates that people will quickly latch on to convenient lies that support what they want to be true, yet impede real discussion of the trade offs if they can’t even get the basic facts right.
I'm not saying it's "good", I'm just saying that it's worth a qualitative consideration of what it _means_ that this incorrect statement is so persistent beyond "not true, STFU"
Urgh, I know that it's a solid explanation but I hate the "it may not be true but it captures a truth that people feel" argument so much!
See also "instagram is spying on you through your microphone". It's not, but I've seen people argue that it's OK for people to believe that because it supports their general (accurate) sentiment that targeted ads are creepy.
> See also "instagram is spying on you through your microphone". It's not, but I've seen people argue that it's OK for people to believe that because it supports their general (accurate) sentiment that targeted ads are creepy.
I used to be sceptical of this claim but I have found it increasingly difficult to be sceptical after we found out last year that Facebook was exploiting flaws in Android in order to track your browsing history (bypassing the permissions and privilege separation model of Android)[1].
Given they have shown a proclivity to use device exploits to improve their tracking of users, is it really that unbelievable that they would try to figure out a way to use audio data? Does stock Android even show you when an app is using its microphone permission? (GrapheneOS does.) Is it really that unbelievable that they would try to do this if they could?
If they are using the microphone to target ads, show me the sales pitch that their ad sales people use to get customers to pay more for the benefits of that targeting.
I get your point, but can you point to a sales pitch which included "exploit security flaws in Android to improve tracking"? Probably not, but we know for a fact they did that.
Also, your own blog lists an leak from 2024 about a Facebook partner bragging about this ability[1]. You don't find the claim credible (and you might be right about that, I haven't looked into it), but I find it strange that you are asking for an example that your own website provides?
I have already experienced the benefits of sending this to several family members, and I'm thankful for the hard work you put into laying everything out so clearly
AI most definitely uses more water than a traditional full text search because it is much more computationally expensive.
The water figures are very overestimated, but the principle is true: using a super computer to do simple things uses more electricity, compute and therefore water than doing it in a traditional way.
I mean, think of it this way. If I built a web app that took HTTP requests and converted them into a YouTube video, then downloaded and decoded that video in software, and then served the request, you'd say "that's stupid - you're using 10,000x more compute than you need to".
It's a tool, and using the wrong tool for the wrong job is just wasteful. And, usually, overly complicated and frail. So it's only losses.
