That's because people can't handle speed. With a natural delay, they could cool down or at least become more detached. Society needs natural points where people are forced to detach from what they do. That's one reason why AI and high-speed communications are so dangerous: they accelerate what we do too quickly to remain balanced. (And I am speaking in general here, of course there will be a minority who can handle it.)

Because it's already distributed. Better targets for government services would be things that are owned by monopolies.

> Nuclear is good though, it's the single densest source of energy in the world (and, well, outside of it too).

It would be good if the energy were used in critical applications. Wasted energy is stil wasted.

> I don't get your argument though, where has it "accelerated consumerism?"

Are you serious? It is making people richer, allowing people to make products faster, including software. Of course that makes consumption faster.

> And you can't be serious about its medical applications, I doubt more people would die from its incremental climate change effects (as compared to, say, car accidents, much less car pollution in cities) as compared to being saved from death.

No, I am serious. And it will get much worse in the future. Check out [1], [2], etc.. And lets not forget the increased storms, flooding, etc. We are all responsible for that. But those that use electricity like big tech should be held especially responsible because they encourage the bad behaviour and use resources directly.

> Even outside of the scientific fields, AI sure is solving a lot of my problems, saying one is an "enemy of humanity" is the sort of hyperbole I'd only see on HN.

Solving your problems doesn't really mean solving the world's problems, just like making the top 10% richer doesn't make the world a better place. I absolutely consider them the enemy of humanity.

1. https://ourworldindata.org/part-two-how-many-people-die-from...

2. https://www.weforum.org/press/2024/01/wef24-climate-crisis-h...

Not if spending a little extra money and keeping with the inefficiency helps make money in other ways, such as getting the product out faster or allowing their workers to focus on the tech stack. Saving a little electricity cost might cost them in their development, so they're likely to use the cheap electricity and offset the cost to the environment.

Let's not also forget material use. According to [1], "Global AI demand is expected to consume 4.2-6.6 billion cubic meters of water by 2027, surpassing Denmark’s total annual water withdrawal of 4-6 billion cubic meters." And there's also all the mining required for the materials to build the computers, and the fossil fuels shipping them and making them in the first place in places like Taiwan.

Reference:

1. https://unric.org/en/artificial-intelligence-how-much-energy...