[keeda]

If you had some goal to achieve -- whatever it was, professional or personal -- would you rather expend X resources to achieve it or (X - Y), where Y was a significant % of X?

And if those resources had an environmental impact, and if you were truly concerned about the environment, why would you want to choose the option that expends more of those resources?

Think of it this way: if you had a doubt you wanted to resolve, would you drive to the library and spend hours or days scanning through reference material... or would you do a Google search?

That is essentially what the "environmental impact" debate comes down to, but nobody is talking about it that way. We can talk all day about the impact of AI on jobs and society, but the impact on the environment is a red herring, and a destructive counter-productive one at that, as TFA shows.

[thyristan]

Yes of course, the capitalist way of thinking forces lower resource consumption, as long as those resources are measured in monetary expenses.

But when thinking about society and the environment, there are different considerations that make the simplistic capitalist thinking wrong in certain situations. Human labor is such a resource that cannot be strictly evaluated by monetary values.

For example (caveat: slight intentional alteration): > would you drive to the library and spend hours or days scanning through reference material... or would you do a [prompt and have AI provide you with a summary]?

Of course on the first glance, as a lazy person myself, the choice is obvious. But is it really? Doing the research yourself has secondary benefits, such as higher familiarity with and learning of the topic. Even as a boss who pays money for people who do that, I'll sometimes gladly pay money so they'll learn and become better employees.

> That is essentially what the "environmental impact" debate comes down to, but nobody is talking about it that way.

Because the environmental impact of human labor behaves differently than the environmental impact of other resources.

If you consume less steel the environmental benefit is clear. Less consumption means less extraction, less processing, less waste and pollution, etc. There is also a direct feedback loop through our capitalist system to induce this. Nobody will mine iron ore that won't be paid for, processed, sold as steel. In that sense, steel is a flexible resource, because there is a direct relation between demand, supply and environmental impact.

If you consume less human labor, things are not so clear and easy. There is a base rate of the "production" of humans, that is relatively independent from the flow of money (actually, it might even be an inverse relation: the less money you have, the more you procreate). The production of human labor is also a slow process, since it takes around 2 decades for a human to grow up. So the resource "human labor" is basically an always-there-resource at some amount that won't be influenced by market forces. The environmental impact of that amount of humans won't be influenced by market forces. So for the environment, it is actually better to give those humans something to do, and use human labor as an always-there-resource, instead of using flexible resources. Same thing for society, humans with nothing to do are generally considered a problem, so you need to give them something to do.

So in a strictly capitalist sense, you are right. But when talking about the environment and society, human labor is a special resource that cannot be treated like other resources.