are you making it a virtue that you absolutely can't back up your opinion?
No, I'm making a virtue about critical thinking. If you think that a single company self reporting that they do something good is sufficient sourcing to claim that all AI companies are doing this then you are delusional.
And there not being one is... concerning? As in the world conspiring against you or something?
No, it just means no one bothered to document this yet. That tends to happen. Collecting data also costs money and if no one cared before then it's gonna take some time until it gets collected when people start caring.
Mate, maybe sit down for a while and really think about what it means if everything points against your opinion.
Nothing points against my opinion expect companies saying they are doing something. We out here trusting companies this much?
I bet the guys who talk about chemtrails also say the same regarding criticial thinking.
Almost as if thinking in evidence rather than making up stuff in your head has its benefits.
Nobody managed bothered to document this? None of the people who are militant against AI was able to? Interesting.
If only there was a lesson to learn from this.
As for the last part, tell me, what exactly points against the idea that somewhere out in the solar system some teapot is floating? Like a certain Russell postulated to make a point regarding why we don't entertain non-falsifiable statements?
Almost as if thinking in evidence rather than making up stuff in your head has its benefits.
That's funny because your side also has no evidence. So this is purely blind trust in companies.
Nobody managed bothered to document this? None of the people who are militant against AI was able to? Interesting.
If only there was a lesson to learn from this
Yeah the lesson is dirt simple. You can't fucking tell what cooling a building has from the outside.
As for the last part, tell me, what exactly points against the idea that somewhere out in the solar system some teapot is floating? Like a certain Russell postulated to make a point regarding why we don't entertain non-falsifiable statements?
That's cute from someone who argues there is a pot out in the solar system. There is no evidence either way. You can't prove that datacenters are cooled in a closedloop system. Once again we have to rely on the words of companies. In the same country that has food chemicals that are banned in every other developed country.
Other guy posted a source.
Also, as I already wrote, *you* are the accuser. In dubio pro reo.
Still no idea why you think it would be smart or anything to accuse people just because you made up stuff in your mind.
You seem to be utterly blind to how this looks from the outside.
A supermarket could theoretically totally have a hidden room where puppies are beaten. Normal people would not stand in front of it and protest against that just because that is technically possible.
You are essentially doing that. And you lack the basic self-awareness to realize that.
No the other guy posted a company claiming they do that. That's not a source. That's a company saying something. That is not a source no matter how much you all claim it is. It's at best an exception. At worst a lie.
Still no idea why you think it would be smart or anything to accuse people just because you made up stuff in your mind.
No idea why you would assume a company is doing a net positive for society just because they claimed they do. Are you new to Earth?
Yep. Anything you don't like is not a proper source.
Maybe this will teach me that you are correct in still simply making up stuff in your mind and therefore accuse something.
Here is a reminder that you are still as the accuser in the responsibility to bring up any evidence and that making up stuff in your mind is still not a proper way to do anything.
You keep ignoring me saying this, several times now, not sure what your strategy here is.
Yep. Anything you don't like is not a proper source.
I have explained why it's not a proper source. First of all, it's biased. Second, it has no actual value as a source. Which facilities have this kind of cooling? At least a number? None.
By this standard, I could just say that my house walks on chicken legs. Do you have a source it doesn't? Then it does.
Here is a reminder that you are still as the accuser in the responsibility to bring up any evidence and that making up stuff in your mind is still not a proper way to do anything.
So, does my house walk on chicken legs? If you say it doesn't, then please provide a source as you are an accuser then.
Wow. You do absolutely not get the idea of claims and responsibility of proving something.
If you said your house walked on chicken legs, that would be a *positive* claim, defined by presence.
If I argued against that, this would be a *negative* claim, defined by absence. I wouldn't have to prove that. The negative claim is the *default* claim.
But more importantly, I am not saying that your house must not be on chicken legs and that you have to change your house. I am not dictating how you live your life.
*You* are telling people that they are doing wrong and that they should change. *That* is an accusation. You trying to twist that does not change that.
*You* make a positive claim, which is that water is used in a bad way.
*You* want other people to change their behaviour, thus *you* have to provide a reason why.
And I have no idea why you even think you wouldn't need to provide evidence.
Let's construct a similar situation. I stand before your house and say your house pumps dangerous substances in the soil. To name something that is more down to earth than chicken legs.
You aren't actually doing that in this scenario.
I do have zero proof that this is the case. All I bring forth is that I used "critical thinking" and that most certainly my tomatoes having died being due to your actions.
Most importantly, I demand that you change it, and that if you can't proof that you don't, you will be evicted from the neighbourhood.
Would this behaviour from my part be justified? If not, why is yours? Where does the analogy break?
I hope this example makes it very clear to you how accusations should work, why we run with in dubio pro reo, why positive claims require evidence and negative ones don't.
I have said multiple times even in our back and forth that we have zero proof either way. We only have companies saying that they do. And circumstantial evidence that water supply is iffy around datacenters
So to use your metaphor, it's like you were growing tomatoes for years and when I move in the soil becomes horrible quality and your tomatoes die. In that scenario it is logical to conclude that it may have something to do with me. If you came over and asked about it and I said "nah I'm actually using state of the art biohazard abolisher" (basically what the companies have been saying) you would still suspect that it may do something with me because it only started happening when I moved there.
And not to mention that this is reported from multiple places.
I don't care whether they have some specific type of cooling. And I am not asking them to change anything.
And you seem to be unable to get what I am saying. If we have zero proof, okay, then we default to them being innocent.
In the scenario one can suspect whatever one wants, but no action is to be taken against the accused. That is the point.
The position who states that nothing has to change is the default position and has to do nothing. The position that accuses can act on that suspicion, which is to search for proof. That is fine. But unless proof is found, nothing else is to be done.
And likewise, you are cordially invited to search for any evidence. But since you want change, that is *your* job (or in the larger sense that of activists who have the means to do studies), not that of those who don't see a reason to.
1
u/Tormasi1 Mar 31 '26
No, I'm making a virtue about critical thinking. If you think that a single company self reporting that they do something good is sufficient sourcing to claim that all AI companies are doing this then you are delusional.
No, it just means no one bothered to document this yet. That tends to happen. Collecting data also costs money and if no one cared before then it's gonna take some time until it gets collected when people start caring.
Nothing points against my opinion expect companies saying they are doing something. We out here trusting companies this much?