

What fields, specifically?
I’m trying to understand why there’s so much angry energy here. Some of my colleagues work in research and none of them come across as an AI evangelist, not even close. Even more, there are a lot of valid concerns coming from them, from copyright infringements to privacy to accuracy. In engineering, there’s that, plus security, and above all, cost. Training and running models is extremely expensive and it may not even yield the desired results.
So what’s your angle here?


I didn’t say anything that was wrong. In fact, I just asked you a perfectly reasonable question about this model bundled in Chrome, and then you went haywire.
Regardless, I’m no AI researcher, and I suspect that you aren’t either, so I asked you to specify because I could tell that “art” is doing some really heavy lifting here, in the sense that you seem to think that AI can “create” art that is, in any way or form, important or innovative enough to justify its energy usage or the ramifications of it, like the increased cost in wholesale electricity, and thus electricity bills, see https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/data-center-power-demands-are-contributing-to-higher-energy-bills and https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2025-ai-data-centers-electricity-prices/
So, is McDonald’s bad for the environment? Sure it is. But food goes to feed people. How much do you think diffusion generated images are worth, compared to a cow? And oil companies, they are definitely bad for the environment as well, and turns out 40% of the energy consumed by data centers comes from natural gas. If we assume that demand drives production, then we should agree that data centers should minimize the use of gas. By the way, 4% of the total energy production in the US goes to power these data centers, see https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/24/what-we-know-about-energy-use-at-us-data-centers-amid-the-ai-boom/. I would say that if we could reduce that number by cutting off AI clip art generation, it would be a net win for everyone.