Anonymous OP 1d

*relevant I also want to make clear I am anti-ai and for major reform in the meat industry but I hate when people make comparisons that are this mismatched and have gotten mad in the past when their point is misinterpreted because of being vague or being given constructive criticism

22

Anonymous #1 1d

The graph is being used out of context without the data nor the article it is from, which makes it wrong. I am also pointing out that the beef industry is larger, more established, and has live animals than the smaller, newer ai industry. I make no claim that either is “valid” as you put it just that they are not comparable industries, especially without evidence. Also the poster I quoted is notorious for not explaining their point correctly or with relevant evidence and gets upset when either

18

Anonymous OP 1d

of these points are pointed out to them. This is not the first time she has made a post like this and it won’t be the last. As for my personal views I have already explained them above when I was providing context but as I added that right before your comment showed up I don’t blame you for missing it, just letting you know where it is.

8

Anonymous #2 1d

They are still not comparable industries when it comes to size, years of use, or product produced. You are correct that she is not pro-ai but she is absolutely terrible at explaining her point and has gotten mad and even attacked people in the comments from drawing that conclusion as it is a possible conclusion to draw from this out of context graph. The main point I’m trying to make that she is not stating or using her sources correctly, is horrible at explaining her point until it is already

1

Anonymous OP 1d

been misinterpreted, constantly gets angry when misinterpreted, and has never changed her method of delivery in the year she’s been posting this despite having been given constructive criticism multiple times on how to fix it.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Honestly, I think this might just be a “you” problem? I agree that people should cite their sources but like, I don’t think this is a terribly academic context and I don’t think that OP was unclear in their meaning. And also: how do you know it’s th same person?

-3

Anonymous #2 1d

I know it’s the same person because this is the same comparison. They have made the entire year although they have recently picked a different graph. I guess you could say it’s a me but I just personally don’t think that someone should get praised for a point that has about as much research as a Facebook antivax post. I am other stem majors have tried to give her constructive criticism on how to make this point more scientifically sound as well as being

1

Anonymous OP 1d

made more relevant to the point she’s trying to make with a better comparison because she may very well have a point, she is just not expressing it to the full extent that she could. I also just have a problem about how angry and rude she gets when anyone tries to give her any sort of advice. There’s also the issue that she has been posting this for a year and this is the only time that she’s had any sort of positive response

0

Anonymous OP 1d

likely due to the fact that this is the first time she’s gotten close to actually explaining her point, which I applaud her for. It’s just frustrating watching someone who could very well make a wonderful scientific paper purposely make themselves vague and unsourced because they do not want to put the effort into better explaining themselves.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Thanks for your response and for caring about scientific integrity. I agree that the two industries aren’t super comparable- but the graph does go to show that beef is a huge water guzzler, and maybe we should focus on lowering beef consumption as much as we push against ai use. Maybe that’s her point? There is definitely space for both

5

Anonymous #1 1d

In the past when she has tried to explain her point she has said that she uses this graph that she’s trying to argue that people don’t know what they’re talking about when they say ai data centers consume a lot of water. This is at least how I interpreted it as again, she’s not great at making her point. Using my interpretation though, a lot of the reason water usage is pointed out when it comes to data centers is more about the infrastructure and environmental impacts. As we have seen with the

8

Anonymous OP 1d

one in California, these data centers are being put in places without water infrastructure that can support both the data centers and the residents of the area, and the residents are the ones that suffer. There’s also the environmental impact both in the building of these data centers and the pollution they make.

6

Anonymous OP 23h

If your previous attempts at constructive criticism looked like this, then I can understand why they’re not particularly receptive. You’re being very aggressive and holding a random yikyak anon to such high srandards. Like, yes she should cite her sources, but it’s a yikyak post, not a scientific paper

-2

Anonymous OP 23h

You criticize them for comparing the beef and ai industries, and one reply down you say their tbh write a scientific paper instead of a forum post. You criticize their post for being hard to parse, and in the same breath offer a nonsensical suggestion to improve it. I get you want people to cite their sources. I agree with you on that. But this kind of crashout just makes them more likely to disregard what you’re saying.

-2

Anonymous OP 23h

The beef industry has far worse environmental impacts (pollution, land use, emissions, etc) btw. Just want to make sure that this fact is clear

-3

Anonymous #2 23h

I am only being aggressive now because as I have stated previously, she has been pulling this for a year. It has become very clear to me that she is not doing this for scientific integrity. This is at best because she thinks she’s right and doesn’t care to provide sources. That is why I’m being aggressive. That is why I am “crashing out”. She has the potential to have a very valid point, but she is shooting herself in the foot with her delivery and I have frankly ran out of patience for that.

1

Anonymous #2 23h

The industries are still not comparable. That could’ve been a separate conversation, but as I have said previously, she is clearly not open to criticism. I have only seen her be open to discuss this with people who agree with her blindly and don’t ask questions.

8

Anonymous OP 23h

The point of the post is to compare these industries—the comparison may not be warranted, may require a lot of nuance, but still, if you mention the impact of ai on a post comparing ai and beef, then you shouldn’t be surprised that someone mentions beef.

-3

Anonymous OP 23h

What the hell… this is yikyak. Who the hell is making a post for the purpose of scientific integrity? On yikyak? You keep holding this person to very high standards for no reason. To be clear though, “Cite your sources” is a reasonable expectation

-2

Anonymous OP 22h

And like. Not to belabor this point, but still. Why do you assume this is the same person? How do you know it’s not just, like, multiple people who have seen the idea in the wild at different points in time?

-2

Anonymous #2 22h

I’m not surprised someone mentions beef, this entire post has been about how the industries are not comparable and she isn’t citing sources. You can disagree with how I am approaching this all you want, but don’t twist my words.

5

Anonymous #2 22h

Since you’ve decided to start twisting my words about this under another comment thread, I’m just going to block you because you are not arguing for this person or against me in good faith.

6

Anonymous OP 21h

Honestly I agree with #2 here bc they ARE comparable, we are comparing two industries that cause environmental harm. The thing to be careful with is which conclusions we draw from the comparison

0

Anonymous #1 21h

(Comparing and contrasting* might be the key word here)

-1

Anonymous #1 21h

I could very well change my mind about whether or not these industries are comparable if she was willing to provide more context that would show how she’s drawing this conclusion. However, for the past year she has been posting this, she has refused to give that context. My main issue with #2 was I felt they were twisting my words and trying to make me look aggressive for no reason when I have explained multiple times to them what my exact issue was and why I appear so aggressive now.

4

Anonymous _orangutan 21h

animal agriculture is more comparable to the defense, petrochemical, and fossil fuel industries in terms of the ecological strain it has on our planet. regardless, both animal agriculture and the expansion of data centers needs to be halted, and we need an emergency cut on emissions

13

Anonymous _orangutan 21h

Yes! That plus other reasons I have mentioned tell me there’s far more contrasting points than comparable but she won’t even try to give comparable points!

6

Anonymous #1 21h

Agriculture yields produce for consumers under regulatory constraints consistent with reqs for gov’t subsidies intended balance conservation efforts by ecologists and wildlife biologists (farmland is an ESSENTIAL habitat for many species of birds, like Snowy Owls) in addition to provide quality livelihoods for farmers & homesteaders. Meanwhile AI data centers demolish entire ecosystems, pollute waterways with unregulated toxic chemicals, create nuisance light/noise pollution, & NO human benefit

10

Comment Deleted

0

We haven’t been creating new farmland en masse… actually, we’re declining in farmland use over the last 30 years. The AI data centers and federal agencies have “bought back” a ton of that land to develop it which does even WORSE than just remaining farmland where killdeer, snowy owls, coyotes, bald eagles, and more wildlife can forage and grow in open fields — many of which are converted back into grasslands, fens, or prairies when the land is retired and/or donated to nonprofits.

6

Anonymous #4 8h

We aren’t, it’s all happening in places like Brazil where we import a significant quantity of our meat from.

1

Anonymous #4 8h

However, slaughterhouses and meat processing plants are also notorious for contaminating waterways and the atmosphere.

1

Anonymous OP 8h

This girl sounds like a shitty communicator

1

Anonymous #5 8h

but i know that we can agree that data centers have exponentially worse outcomes on the environment in habitat loss and incessant anthropogenic impact 24/7/365… like i don’t understand the gatekeeping on hating AI data centers bc people aren’t yet educated on how fucked up CAFOs are (i don’t eat beef myself for this reason). like cmon, por que no los dos? ya feel me?

1

Anonymous #4 8h

I mean I live near many industrial chicken farms and that is DEFINITELY an incessant anthropogenic impact. But many people who have come on via pop environmentalism are avoidant at accepting that their own eating habits for self pleasure cause far more harm than the thing they’re protesting because of environmental reasons. You can’t be a single issue environmentalist you have to care about it as a whole.

1

Anonymous #4 8h

Also again exponentially worse outcomes on the environment, I beg you to see how many acres of the Amazon gets destroyed each year for agriculture and cattle ranching (like 2 mil). That’s just in Brazil It is simply leagues above the destruction from data centres. I don’t mean to question the narrative and I do agree with ai being harmful but they are definitely comparable. We don’t need the amount of meat we consume it’s purely for self pleasure the same as we don’t need AI

2

Anonymous _orangutan 8h

I think the AI industrial complex is growing to be like the defense and other complexes you mentioned. The supply chains of it are stretching long and far, they’re debating destroying mountaintops where I live for quartz that they need for chips.

1

Anonymous #5 7h

I’m not a single issue environmentalist and i think this exact debate we’re having was the ultimate intention of the weird out-of-context graph to make us freshwater conservationists argue about what’s worse when, and i’ll say it again, por que no los dós? there are arguably MORE negative anthropogenic impacts that are ever present in the existence of a data center construction site AND a functional data center. like at least poop is an organic byproduct as opposed to toxic sludge 😭 ilysm tho

1

Anonymous #4 7h

Poop from animals loaded up with antibiotics and other chemicals and drugs going into waterways? Artificial Increases of poop from animal farming in waterways causes ecological dead zones as bacteria break down the organic matter. Also slaughterhouses produce a lot more other types of water contamination than poop.

1

Anonymous #4 7h

Not you but many others that protest AI then happily chow down on a burger right after

1

Anonymous #5 3m

dude i promise you that i have sampled a major river in the Great Lakes region for pharmaceuticals, personal care products, pesticides, and PFAS… let me tell you that the biggest and most concerning part of that research was the PFAS found in the water, algae, AND freshwater mussels which COMPLETELY changed the species distribution downstream from the contaminated sites. Yes, we also have severe algal blooms in the outlet of this river (major shipping channel anyway), but the PFAS is scarier…

1