@BlakeHamiltonCA That image is obviously AI generated and anyone should have caught all the problems with it. For water to be that high on Wellington, the Ottawa river would have had to have flooded 80-ish metres high,a disaster that would affect the entire Ottawa Valley. Why didn't you use one of the *many* photos of the *actual* flooding rather than slop one up? Is the article also AI generated?
Replying to @WTL@mastodon.social
@WTL @BlakeHamiltonCA It's especially ironic to use AI-generated images (and content?) to call to highlight climate change issues, given how bad data centres are for the climate!
Replying to @deathbydenim@mstdn.social
@deathbydenim @BlakeHamiltonCA RIGHT?
We need to stop and reverse climate change … uses tools that are horrible for the climate … 🤦🏻👿
Replying to @WTL@mastodon.social
@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.