[BiteCode_dev]

I still haven't seen anybody demonstrating we have to do such thing.

We do have to spent a bit of each for any new tech advancement, but the alarmist, disproportionate claim you make is really not helping.

ArcelorMittal Dunkirk rolling & steel complex alone is ~450–550 hectares (more than colussus) and consume 2.23 TWh/year (colussus is ~2.6 TWh/year at 300 MW continuous load) and of course, water consumption for metal working is gigantic.

That's just ONE single facility in France.

I don't think anybody who understands the basics of civilization would want to go back before the Industrial Revolution.

Tech has a cost, and you usually pay a lot more at the begining of creating it.

Does it cause problems? Sure. Should we take it very seriously? Definitely.

But just repeating internet outrage is not a way to make good decisions.

[expedition32]

The question is not about the cost the question is who pays that cost.

Tech companies clearly want to coast on the infrastructure built out by the government. Microsoft doesn't really want to pay 10 billion euro to upgrade the Dutch power supply.

What happens is that they will go to countries that let them pollute- a tale as old as the industrial revolution.

[BiteCode_dev]

That's a different issue than OP's superlative claims and is something we as a society need to be working on.

But it's not AI related, it's true every time the eich and powerful privatize benefits while making the costs and risks to society.

It's a more global and important problem.