Being all in on AI doesnt mean they have to be all in on bottom of the barrel slop videos. Youtube actually does a great job of not serving you slop if it gets to know you well enough. And it does notify you if it detects the video is AI generated. I would hope tech companies are awake to the fact that people’s feeds being deluged by the absolute uncanniest and disturbing visuals you’ve ever seen is feeding into anti-AI sentiment, and they probably shouldn’t be further enabling that.
I'd rather bet that YouTube wants the greatest number of people watching as many videos with as many ads as possible, and that they don't give a fuck how the content was produced as long as it acquires and retains eyeballs.
In what way is the Guardian’s article any less ragebait? They’re both presenting an utter non-story as some environmental catastrophe for “datacenter bad” ragebait
The guardian article, though obviously having its own thesis and perspective, presents far more context and detail so that readers can be informed and make up their own mind about the facts of the issue. The NYPost strips out all the detail and uncritically presents the worst possible spin as the ground truth.
I think your “datacenter bad” and “non story” comments indicate that you are biased in the opposite direction that you’re complaining about. You seem not to be interested in actually learning whether any serious misconduct occurred, which is genuinely up for debate.
This issue genuinely matters to a lot of people. Tribalism doesn’t help on either side.
>After the tech company illegally stripped the entire area to build a datacentre – taking even the top soil with it – all that remains is a vast expanse of mud indented with the trail marks of machinery, puddles and mounds of earth, roots and branches. Residents say that brown water flowing off the site is going into a stream that feeds the Oulujoki River.
Yup, definitely no partisan spin in the guardian article...c'mon
Before you form a strong opinion on the matter, I recommend you take the time to investigate who the source of the claims is in this article and whether the counterparty has had sufficient opportunity to state their case.
The commenter’s insinuation is that the article was written in bad faith. Which do you think was closer to the journalist’s process in writing this article:
1) Start an investigation into deforestation, leading to the discovery of the deforestation caused by this datacenter?
2) Start an investigation into anything that maligns datacenters?
How is the article written in bad faith? Did you even read the title let alone the article?
The title: Google cleared 300 hectares of Finnish forest for a data center, and regulators want answers
The opening sentence: Finland's regulator says the environmental review came too late, Google says it followed the law
I'm going with option #1 here because the article represents both sides here equally and makes no claims that laws were broken, only that an investigation is underway. Point me to where it indicates #2 for you.
EDIT: It's not clear if you're simply pointing out OP's misgivings or stating yours in support. Either way, I would like to see evidence of scenario #2 if that's the contention here.
EDIT 2: the more I think to myself about this, the more silly it seems. This is from a website called techspot.com, they literally report on news regarding tech companies. So while it may not be "investigating deforestation" as you put it (which in itself is a ridiculous starting point and you know it), there's also no indication it's providing false news about Google just to bash on data centers.
Actual evidence for or against either motivation would involve investigating the journalist's notes, search history,... and we're obviously not getting any of that so all we have to work with is our priors. Here are mine:
-The amount of deforestation discussed in this article is miniscule compared to the global amount. The probability of the journalist investigating or the editor of the outlet deciding to platform this specific case by uniformly random chance is small.
-Negative news stories about datacenters, AI, tech, etc. are extremely common and highly engaging. The probability of a journalist/editor deciding to specifically seek out an anti-datacenter story is high.
Given these two priors, what do you think the journalists most likely motivations are (or do you disagree with my claims)? You were able to deduce my own motivations for posting, can you do the same for the news outlet?
And in order to not be a bad faith actor myself, let me clarify my motivations for posting: I am here to express dissatisfaction with an unreasonable amount of anti-datacenter bias in the media.
Do a search for "Google Finnish Trees" over the last 24 hours. Almost all of the articles are sensationalist titles that may lend some support to what you're saying, EXCEPT for a handful like the BBC and this specific TechSpot one; where they have remained neutral and factual.
If you look at that source, you can see it lists Sari Myllyoja, Head of Unit, Environmental Department, Communities and Infrastructure Unit. Does that seem like someone out to spread anti-datacenter news to you or someone just doing their job in environmentalism?
Your mission may not necessarily be wrong overall, but it is clearly wrong in this instance and context.
Let's agree to disagree. I don't see sensationalism as necessary to acting in bad faith. If anything, the veneer of disinterested inquiry can be more sinister (what is sometimes called "concern trolling"). Choosing to platform a certain story is a choice. Choosing what context to present and withhold is also a choice. "Google cleared 0.000...% of Finnish forest" is also a factual title.
I think you're moving goalposts. You posed this scenario, did you not:
> Start an investigation into deforestation, leading to the discovery of the deforestation caused by this datacenter?
I've provided evidence to suggest that's exactly what it was in this case. The head of the environmental department found evidence of deforestation and started an inquiry. Techspot (and many other outlets) picked it up because it mentions Google and they are a Tech publication. They provided a neutral view of the matter, sans bias. Those are the facts.
> The amount of deforestation discussed in this article is miniscule compared to the global amount.
By that logic, why not cut half of Finland's forests? I'm sure they won't mind since it's such a small area globally after all.
And I think there are also other nuances than just net loss of forest.
There's also another hypothetical angle to consider which is that Google's egregious deforestation here may be somewhat self-limited due to prior knowledge of Finnish environmental regulations being more strictly enforced. "It is easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission" comes to mind. Imagine then what Google could be doing in other areas of the world where they can freely pave through the land without such oversight. The cumulative destruction then becomes a much larger issue than this "small" chunk of land.
It’s equally useful to continually remind yourself that a Turing machine is just a spool of tape with a magnetic head, and that a human brain is just fatty lipids in a chemical bath.
no, today's hollowed out husk of internet is what is cringy and self conscious, as well as namby-pamby. the attitudes of those who created the internet cannot be called cringy.
The best part of old internet culture is that the people who were there don't really give a damn about the current culture of censoring random perfectly words because of social media.
You can curse on the internet, lots of us don't believe that God will smite us if we do.
reply