Dude, push the anti-meat shit elsewhere. AI is something that is causing new, extreme damage for literally no benefit. You’re not going to convince anyone by attacking other movements.

Also, I’m a vegetarian, go bark up a different tree.

Bad AI slop is bad.

Brb making a char sheet of this for my bestiary

Well, if it sounds like a legit monster, the fact that a 5yo said it wouldn’t be relevant, and without it being absurd the post kinda loses all substance. It is held up by the implication that this odd exchange actually happened, which it didn’t.

“Imagine if there was a spider dragon with a breath attack of breathing thousands of tiny spiders” just doesn’t have the same hook as this exposition.

That creature looks uncomfortable. Also, it’s been a while since I did anything D&D — aren’t those stats buffed a whole lot?

The point isn’t being anti-meat, it’s perspective. The water consumption of AI is completely negligible compared to literally every other facet of our consumption and really isn’t worth using to demonstrate how bad AI is.

AI’s consumption of electricity, on the other hand…

When I have print failures, I try to kitbash failed pieces together into monstrosities. I totally believe this.

well fuck… i’m not gonna sleep tonight.

It’s a tangible example that you can use to demonstrate the absolute waste to someone. Yeah, it’s less water waste than electricity waste, but people can’t visualize the amount of electricity being used and have that be a concrete thing in their mind. Pouring out a gallon of water is an immediately identifiable thing. And the point is to make people associate the absolute reckless waste with the use of ai.

Wait, people can’t visualize the amount of electricity used for something? Oh, right, not everyone is an electrical engineer.

Hebegeebees, +7

Yeah, but that one bottle is dwarfed by the 600 gallons for one cheeseburger. That’s the point I, and the previous poster, are trying to make.

I hear what you’re saying, I just disagree on the effectiveness of the image I guess.

A Google search (ai response, so take it with a grain of salt) suggested a 5 person party could take a dragon with 136 hp and 18 a at levels 8-9 comfortably. 7-8 would be hard, 5-6 would be very difficult but possible. Depends on the DM too.

Note I don’t play much 5e, and my experience in TTRPGs outside a few single session stuff is mostly one Pathfinder 2e campaign currently at level 6.

I would homebrew this as the result of a failed attempt to create a Dracolich/Drow combo. Find it restrained in a dungeon “lab”, long abandoned, but still alive because it’s undead.

Horrible.

Whoever raised his kid is doing it right.

This is about 10x worse than just imagining

Huh? You said it would be unfunny nonsense if it wasn’t a child that said it. I’m saying the child has nothing to do with it, it’s a cool monster anyway, it isn’t nonsense.

Now you’re saying that it’s not about being unfunny or nonsense, it’s that it doesn’t “have the same hook”. Which is it? Is it nonsense? Or do you just not like the method of delivery?

Have you actually played a ttrpg? Or really heard any jokes at all? The way a line is delivered matters. Saying “i beat the goblin” is completely different than saying “i sliced through the goblin, cutting it in half, its body flying through the air where i punt it between the masts of the sailboat like a field goal”. They might be the same exact outcome, the same exact scenario, but the delivery makes one more fun than the other.

The spider dragon sounds like a dope-ass monster to fight, and the kid sounds like an awesome GM. You can have the cool monster with your GM. The delivery here allows you to imagine the fun you can have.

Put it another way: ‘“imagine there was a small short green goblin that fights” just doesn’t have the same hook as this expression’. No shit sherlock.

Pouring out a gallon of water is an immediately identifiable thing

Yes, as in “you can impress people with that”, no, as in “it gives any sort of accurate perception”

There are plenty of things that consume orders of magnitude more water than AI. You’ll be much better off ecologically by skipping the last few seconds of your shower or eating a tiny slice of meat less every week than by not using these tools.

Besides, many of them can be run on your regular, air-cooled PC.

That’s not to say that AI training in general is not an ecological issue - but most of it actually goes in directions other than LLMs and image generation tools, and for models already trained, the footprint is straight up negligible. You likely wasted more energy reading this than getting an AI to make an image for you.

To give them the benefit of the doubt, might they simply be telling true stories out of order?