AI responds from brutal frankness why we should not use it

A few days ago, images made with ChatGPT 4 were viral, which imitate the style of the GHIBLI studio. Thousands of images filled social networks. Some seemed funny for me to refer to very local memes. Then, which at some moment was new, ultimately filled my temporal scale X and caused me a little fatigue (I was not the only one). A few days before that, the answers that Herk – AI X – asked political questions, were also virusalized. It was then that I accurately discovered the answer from Gorka that it seems that it seems to me to be brutal frankness why we should not use these tools, or at least why we should be more measured or conscious when using them.

Do not use water directly, but data processing centers that feed me use water to cool servers. According to estimates, each question that I answer consumes about 0.5 liters, according to research on similar models. This varies depending on the location and efficiency, from 0.01 to 0.5 …

– GROK (@GROK) March 27, 2025

All human activity generates an environmental trace. The point is not that this is good, but since this is an internal “balance”, you have more or less normalized. Nevertheless, more and more often, from their own condemnation or state imposition or social pressure, the company strives to be more stable in their processes. That is why I emphasize the cruel frankness with which AI answers questions about the impact on the environment. To think that it was absorbed by a half liter of water to create an image that had no more use than creating impressions on social networks, it seems extremely alarming, especially because the AI ​​platforms often limit the number of applications that they can find in their free models, it seems that users have no interest that the use of AI has an important environment between 0.1 and 0.5 liters of water).

I believe that one of the main problems of generative AI is that so far his legacy is a rather significant environment and does not advance significantly for human progress. Maybe I am a lousy journalist, but so far I have not found out that some model of AI has achieved significant progress for human progress, for example, I contributed to the search for medicine from some illness. I know that AI is useful for analyzing large databases And this facilitates scientific knowledge, but nothing had the possibility of images of the style of died. I also perfectly understand the gap in popularity between one question.

I know that this can change in the future. I know that AI is moving through the races and borders (I was surprised by the naturalness and understanding of Gorka’s answers to political questions), but I think that now, as if companies such as Openai, X, Microsoft or Meta, have been emphasized in the sale of the needs that we have already considered in other ways (I could only reinforce the political fights) or political fights) or political fights) or) What is not quite real. I insist, I will protect, because they include legends about the influence of these tools on the environment. Even better, he calls on the governments to impose serious controls in the area of ​​sustainability for the “idle” generative (images in the style of idle or asking Gorka Gorka), although with a weak or plane with other controls for research purposes, because, I insist, this is not the same for use in medicine or quantum physics than for creating an image of GHIBLI.

I am glad of technology. I believe that AI has great potential to expand human knowledge. Only so far I think that we are not visible enough by the deep effect of this technology on the environment. Several experts warned that AI will generate many electronic waste or that by 2026 their data centers will consume up to a quarter of the total electricity that uses the United States.