5 anti-AI arguments that are better than 'it wastes water'

I can immediately tell you get all your news from TikTok if your main anti-AI argument is water scarcity. Here are some anti-AI arguments that I think are a lot more compelling. Number one, carbon emissions and grid strain. So, according to the UN, AI data centers are projected to consume up to 945 terawatt hours of electricity by 2030, effectively delaying net zero goals and forcing power grids to rely on fossil fuels for a lot, lot longer. Number two, electronic waste. It's no secret that AI is evolving so fucking quickly. These rapid upgrades are also generating millions of tons of toxic e-waste a year, making lower income 3rd world countries who are more likely to receive this waste, have to deal with disposing it using unsafe practices because they don't have the right equipment and safety otherwise. Number three, habitat loss. Expanding data centers and their related supply chains have the potential to cover over 14,000 km, which although isn't an absolutely massive area, it does threaten local ecosystems. Number four, socio-economic and labor disruption. We're already beginning to see at an increasing pace AI taking jobs, with an economic inequality with some people being put in a really shit position of training AI models to become intelligent enough to then take their job and make them unemployed, which is just a horrific position to be in. And five, resource inequality. Over 90% of specialized computing capacity is centered in either the US or China, leaving other countries to have to bear the economic and environmental brunt of the damage whilst getting none of the financial rewards that these global superpowers are. I'm not saying AI water usage is good, I'm just saying it's not all of the conversation.