[latexr]

Patently not true. Pokémon Go, for example, wouldn’t fit several of the points.

> The inevitable, dehumanising consequence of it.

> Rubbish in and rubbish out of it.

> Nobody asked for it, and nobody wants it.

> A thousand no’s, but ‘yes’ when shareholders start clamouring for it.

> A decommissioned nuclear power station required to power it.

> Not to mention millions of gallons of water required to cool it.

[nottorp]

I and the article are talking about the serious techy hysterias that will make you BILLIONS if you only got into them in time.

Not some measly free to play gambling app.

[latexr]

The article is clearly talking specifically about AI, you’re the one generalising it.

> A decommissioned nuclear power station required to power it.

How many tech hysterias fit that?

[nottorp]

If it's decommissioned it doesn't provide any power does it?

[latexr]

Obviously it’s referring to its reactivation.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/20/three-mi...

What the heck did you think that line meant? How would a reactor not producing power be used to power anything?

But even if it were unable to provide any power, which would have made absolutely no sense, it still wouldn’t have supported your point. It’s obvious the article is talking about the specific case of AI and not tech hysterias in general.