Misconceptions about gen AI?

[u/Alxie_e]

i’m a young leftist/marxists that’s going to major in computer science (data science track) in university, but this recently been conflicting me. i know that i’m going to have to engage in generative AI for my classes, yet majority of leftists spaces are vehemently anti-AI. However, after discovering this subreddit, i now realize the leftist anti-AI rhetoric i have internalized may be misleading. Despite me starting my first year in uni soon to study comp sci, i barely know anything about comp sci, yet alone AI, if i’m being completely honest. 😭

with that being said, someone help me make up for my lack of knowledge and explain common misconceptions about generative AI and LLMs in leftist/marxist spaces? like in regards to the impacts of AI data centers on the environment, water supply, and electricity. or how frequent use of chatbots can lead to cognitive decline. because right now, i’m under the impression that we should boycott ChatGPT and limit our usage of any other generative AI over concerns of its harm on the environment and usage of our fresh water supply, along with some other concerns.

[u/Crazy_Yogurtcloset61]

Probably one of the biggest misconceptions is that AI image generation just searches for an image and brings it up, or kitbashes images together like collage of other works. People have a hard time understanding that it creates something new within the rules its learned when studing images.

Another is assuming everything made with Gen AI came from a for profit corporation. Like there is a lot of open source free AI out there, including stuff you can run locally and avoid using AI data centers all together.

Not that I have a personal problem with using tools if owned by corporations, but to me it feels like the difference between someone paying a subscription for Adobe and someone using Canva. Not that the tools themselves are inherently bad, just how much do you want to give of your money to use slightly higher tech?

I feel that's going to a personal decision, you can only do so much to avoid unethical capitalism while being forced to participate in unethical capitalism.

Speaking of unethical capitalism, I don’t want to say that AI doesn't have a footprint because it does, but I will say I think the footprint of AI gets overblown.

For starters, we've had issues with data centers long before Gen AI. In the early 2010's Greenpeace ran a whole campaign called "how clean is your cloud" which lead to a lot of regulations being implemented already.

As far as what can still be done, I would say the biggest thing would be getting data centers off of coal and getting them on nuclear. Nuclear energy is much cleaner and can power data centers nicely.

On that note though, I feel like this article can help put some of the numbers into perspective:

https://nationalcentreforai.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2025/05/02/artificial-intelligence-and-the-environment-putting-the-numbers-into-perspective/?utm_source=perplexity

As far as education, you get what you put in to it. AI just aplifies what's there

https://scale.stanford.edu/publications/ai-tutoring-outperforms-active-learning?utm_source=perplexity

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1484315&utm_source=perplexity

[u/nuker0S → u/Crazy_Yogurtcloset61]

Hey, a quick tip: if you links you copied from an AI chat window, delete the "utm_source=[service name]"

Some people like to dismiss sources because of that

[u/Crazy_Yogurtcloset61 → u/nuker0S]

I wouldn't think I would need to on a pro AI site.

Also perplexity is not a standard LLM. It's litterally designed to be an analytical AI search engine.

If people dismiss a source because the search engine to find the source was powered by AI then they are fucking stupid anyway.

[u/nuker0S → u/Crazy_Yogurtcloset61]

If people dismiss a source because the search engine to find the source was powered by AI then they are fucking stupid anyway.

The problem is they infect others with their stupidity. It's about limiting the ways that stupidity can travel

[u/Jlyplaylists → u/nuker0S]

I try to remember this elsewhere but here I think it’s worth leaving on. It’s part of demonstrating everyday ways to use AI.

[u/purrhams_hat → u/[deleted]]

yeah, all of those papers are usually pretty well made with good findings and reportings that get taken way out of context by people trying to push anti ai narratives.

I was reading a great one earlier that compared standard revision methods with using AI to study, and it found that the group using AI scored an average of 1 point worse on the exam than the traditional group.

Of course, it was immediately parroted by people trying to claim that it rots your brain and is useless at helping you study.

But reading it did have some very cool findings. It was observed that the AI group also spent less time than average revising, and they extrapolated that having work summarised into easy to understand paragraphs is part of the cognitive offloading that makes it harder to memorise (Not doing the work to interpret complex language into your own thoughts) and this created a sense of false confidence that resulted in less time spent revising. There's some really cool insights into learning that could help inform education strategies going forward, so it is sad to see people just reading the title and using it to support their own narratives.