Blake Hamilton

@meanmeggin I get where you’re coming from. A lot of AI use definitely is wasteful, exploitative, misleading, and treated way too casually by way too many users. I’m not dismissing that at all.

But I don’t think total rejection/abstinence is the only ethical position or solution. All tools can be misused without every single use being automatically indefensible. The question is whether they’re used transparently, sparingly, responsibly, and under clear and strict rules that properly address the energy, water, copyright, labour and misinformation issues.

In this case, I chose badly. I should have used a real image. But I don’t agree that the only reasonable conclusion is “never use these tools for anything”.

@WTL @deathbydenim That’s a very fair distinction, and I mostly agree. Data centres are indeed necessary; they have been for decades, long before the rise of AI. The question is whether we properly regulate them like serious infrastructure, instead of letting every company cosplay as a public utility with a press release and a hose.

I’m not arguing LLMs are magic oracles. They’re not. They hallucinate, flatten nuance, and can produce very confident nonsense if/when used lazily. But “often wrong” is not the same as “completely useless.” Calculators didn’t remove the need to understand math; AI doesn’t remove the need for human judgment, sourcing, editing, domain knowledge, or basic BS detection.

So yes, it’s not an end-all solution. Not a toy to trust blindly. But also not an evil demon machine. It’s a tool, same as many others…powerful, messy, overhyped, useful, and badly in need of adult supervision.

@WTL well said and totally agreed. Thanks! LLAP 🖖🏼

Fun with AI headshots, vol. 11…

Slightly misaligned, heavily pigmented, broadly representative.
Calm, cool, and printed with the charming imprecision of democracy itself.
Looking like the cover of an underground magazine devoted entirely to committee reform.

@WTL @deathbydenim again, I get the frustration, and I agree in hindsight that. the image was a bad call. I should have taken tte extra time to find and use an actual flood photo. No argument there. My bad.

But I don’t accept the broader “uses AI-adjacent tool/image, therefore climate message completely invalid” framing. That’s a neat moral shortcut, but it’s not a rational evidence-based argument. AI infrastructure definitely has real environmental costs when done poorly, and those costs deserve full scrutiny. But better siting, clean power use, low-water cooling, water recycling and efficient data-centre designs are real solutions.

My mistake was using a bad image. The climate and flood-preparedness argument still stands.

@deathbydenim @WTL 100% good point that the image was a bad choice - I rechinyse that now. For the record I didn’t generate it myself, but I did use it, and that’s what matters. I was rushed, tired, and made the clickbait-y choice instead of using a real Ottawa flood photo. I regret that now. My bad.

Though I do think the “AI use = climate hypocrisy” framing is way too black and white binary and oversimplified, though. Data centres can indeed be environmentally damaging, especially when badly located, badly powered or water-intensive. But that is not inevitable. Smarter design, clean electricity/energy source use, better cooling, water recycling/reclamation and avoiding drought-prone regions all matter.

The real issue is not whether or not the technology exists - it does; can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Opposing its existence is like opposing trains for displacing horses & buggies. The real issue with AI is whether we govern and build it responsibly. And we can.

@WTL : totally fair criticism on the image. In hindsight it was a bad call on my part. I didn’t actually create it myself - I pulled it from a rushed Google image search for “Ottawa flood 2026”. I was tired, and let the clickbait part of my brain win. That’s on me, and I apologize for that sloppiness.

To be clear though my article itself is not AI-generated slop; it’s a carefully researched and properly sourced piece about flood risk, preparedness, insurance, infrastructure and climate adaptation. But yes, the image undermined trust in the work, and that was my mistake. I’ll own that 100%

@awoodland @gainfullydozy : that’s a totally fair reaction. Mea culpa. You’re 100% right - a bad intro image and thumbnail can absolutely make people distrust the article itself, and I own that completely. For the record,I didn’t create the image; I found it in a rushed/fatigued Google image search. I should have looked harder for a better genuine photo/image, instead using a poor AI-generated visual because it was clickbaity attention-grabbing. Bad call.

That said, I disagree with the conclusion that jumps from “bad image used” to “therefore the whole content is propaganda/AI slop.” NO. I spent hours researching and writing that article myself. A lapse in promo photo judgement shouldn’t invalidate that effort or the substance of what I said. That’s illogical and very unfair. It’s an understandable trust doubt reaction - I do get that - but it is still a leap.

I’d ask that you try to set aside your own biases and read/evaluate on its own merits, please.

@gainfullydozy Fair enough/touché. And “the hill sprouted a second Peace Tower” is a really good zinger…made me chuckle…well done on that.But your broader framing here is way too reductive and unfair.

“AI uses energy, therefore any AI illustration cheapens climate advocacy” is not analysis; it’s a false binary zero-sum and silly ideological purity test. AI’s footprint should be carefully measured, regulated and powered by clean electricity, like every other major digital technology. And also incorporate a bunch of great new techs to lessen its thirst/water consumption.

Meanwhile, my article is about flooded homes, insurance gaps, emergency preparedness, flood mapping, land-use planning and infrastructure. That is the substance. I’m not going to pretend the climate crisis hinges on whether I (sloppily) used an editorial image generator. It doesn’t. Not even close.

First-Past-The-Post Fail League❗️
UK Edition 🇬🇧🗳️!

Today’s champion:

Sarah Smith
MP for Hyndburn

Won with only 33.5% of total voter ballots cast

Multi-Member #ProportionalRepresentation please! Like and share if you agree!

#UKPolitics @electoralreform @MakeVotesMatter