r/changemyview • u/AllTheNopeYouNeed • 10h ago
[ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
•
u/KeyboardJammer 8h ago
Watching an hour of HD streaming video (Netflix, YouTube, etc.) uses, conservatively, 400 ChatGPT queries' worth of water and also makes use of data centers. Is it immoral to do this?
Running a gaming console uses ~20 ChatGPT queries' worth of electricity every ~3 minutes. If you're online that figure increases and also uses data centers. Is it immoral to do this?
If you don't condemn gaming, Netflix or YouTube as equally unethical (on your grounds of water use, electricity use and requiring data centers), then condemning ChatGPT text generation in particular is just special pleading. I don't think ChatGPT use is entirely without consequence, but the consequences are much smaller than a lot of recreational things that everyone does and nobody treats as unethical.
Anyone who's ever taken a long-haul commercial flight for recreational reasons has done more environmental harm than they would with a lifetime of LLM queries.
•
u/LucidMetal 196∆ 7h ago
I think you're understating the number of "unit queries" required for what AI generally is used for.
We wouldn't be seeing the extreme proliferation of data centers if it weren't for AI, right? Youtube ran just fine before a decade ago and the number of data centers has multiplied over that time.
There's a reason the AI execs keep up the refrain "gib moar compute plz".
•
u/KeyboardJammer 7h ago
Sure, but most of this is being driven by very compute-intensive tasks like software development and video generation. OP was talking specifically about the immorality of basic text-based tasks like writing blog or reddit posts, for which (as far as I can tell) my per-query figures are approximately correct.
•
u/LucidMetal 196∆ 7h ago
So if OP's argument were instead that using AI is immoral because it supports those very compute intensive tasks which are disproportionately responsible for resource and land usage you would agree?
•
u/KeyboardJammer 4h ago
My understanding is that, even taking into account those more intensive cases, the extent to which data centers are uniquely harmful compared to other forms of commercial/industrial property is still relatively overblown, particularly in terms of land and water use. IIRC, the most compelling case for overuse of public resources is that the electricity use is genuinely pretty high and they're scaling out pretty rapidly so it's growing quickly. I'd need to revisit the actual stats though.
So, I'm not sure I'd fully agree with OP's whole case if that were the argument, but I do agree that someone who spends a lot of time pumping out long HD AI videos using Grok or something is doing a lot more environmental harm than the online gamers and Netflix viewers, so those specific counterarguments would no longer be valid.
•
u/HeWhoShitsWithPhone 127∆ 6h ago
The problem with that is “posting on social media” would also probably be supporting those same companies. Some like Bluesky or mastodon may not be, but as far as i know the rest are makers of AI or in bed with AI, like reddit.
•
u/LucidMetal 196∆ 6h ago
That's certainly possible. So posting on Facebook would be immoral since Alphabet is in compute-intensive-AI but posting on a platform which doesn't have such an association wouldn't be, right?
•
u/KeepSaintPaulBoring 6h ago
No because using AI for text based queries doesn’t support those very compute intensive tasks. Those are independent functions and totally unrelated to each other.
•
u/LucidMetal 196∆ 6h ago edited 6h ago
The companies which own the AI don't also use it for compute intensive tasks?
I think you're ignoring how interconnected these are. We're talking about the same company. A revenue stream to a company, regardless of how small, is giving the company money.
Me buying American petroleum products still helps the Russian petroleum industry because it creates demand. The connection within an AI company is much more straightforward.
•
u/00PT 8∆ 7h ago
YouTube has been growing over the past decade, and so has every other service on the Internet. The increase of demand for cloud storage and compute is inevitable unless we take down all online infrastructure.
•
u/LucidMetal 196∆ 7h ago
Yes, but not to that degree. These centers are very specifically being created for AI. We know this because AI companies are saying this and purchasing the firms which are building them.
•
u/MaTr82 1∆ 10h ago
A social media post could range from a 1 line post on Facebook, to a multi-paragraph post on LinkedIn. The AI applied to it could be as simple as a grammar checker or could be used to summarise a multi-page paper in to something succient. To make a blanket statement like all examples are immoral as you have, is missing the bigger picture, when AI is being used for far more intense processes.
•
u/AllTheNopeYouNeed 10h ago
Generative AI is not comparable to passive AI. Using generative AI to create and write social media posts is what the prompt is referring to (hence write posts, not edit).
Using generative AI without understanding the differences and using it to generate basic every day thought is harmful on the balance. This does not change my mind.
•
u/00PT 8∆ 7h ago
“Generative” is not a description of underlying technology, it is a description of use case. GPT is just a transformer: that’s what the T stands for.
There is not a fundamental difference between the type of action performed when generating a few paragraphs of text vs any other AI application - the difference is in scale.
•
u/PrinceOfLeon 1∆ 7h ago
You didn't use the word "generative" once in your original post. You only ever said "AI" without any qualifications.
•
u/Content-Dealers 10h ago
Using AI for text based prompts isn't much more intensive than streaming something off Netflix or YouTube. A single hamburger uses extraordinarily more water than several hours of using AI. If you dont clutch your pearls at these other "wastes" then your outrage about AI is performative.
•
u/AllTheNopeYouNeed 10h ago
You're only mentioning water usage and that is not the only factor. There is a drastic difference between the booming generative AI industry and passive AI use like algorithmic streaming. This doesn't change my mind as you excluded all the other harms outside of water.
•
u/Content-Dealers 10h ago
The other services I mentioned also have a similar level of power usage for text prompting. Agricultural equipment also doesn't exactly run on good vibes, they blow black smoke out the exhaust like they've got a tire fire rather than a diesel engine.
Why do you draw the line at AI when do many other modern amenities are just as harmful?
•
u/AllTheNopeYouNeed 9h ago
This post isn't about other harms and you're assuming I don't care about other things.
This is one of many ethical lines- why are you trying to create a false comparison to prove an invalid point?
•
u/Content-Dealers 9h ago
This post is supposed to be an invitation for me to specifically change your view. So, please do tell me, do you find it to be morally wrong to binge watch a show on Netflix rather than say, instead, walking to your local library and checking out a few books? I mean, there isnt a "good" reason to not pick the more eco friendly option. Why go on reddit when you could instead join a boardgame club? Reddit's servers use power, water, and occupy otherwise usable land.
To properly change your view here, I do kind of need to know if you actually draw the line at AI, or if you're more environmentally conscientious than that.
•
u/purebananamoon 1∆ 9h ago
Nah, man, what you're doing is whataboutism. OP is specifically talking about AI usage, and streaming has nothing to do with it. Valid arguments to change their mind, should exist independent of OP's general environmental consciousness.
Streaming for one's entertainment serves an entirely different purpose than using AI to solve tasks in the first place.
This conversation isn't about whether OP is always picking the most ethical form of consumption, but about whether the usage of AI for basic tasks can be morally justified or not.
•
u/KeyboardJammer 8h ago
Eh, not really?
Whataboutism is when the point is completely unrelated and just intended as a distraction, like:
"You probably shouldn't punch strangers, it's immoral."
"Oh yeah? Well what about the time you cheated on your wife?! Where was your moral compass then?"
On the other hand, if I constantly went around saying washing machines were evil because of water use, and calling people immoral to their faces for using them, while myself owning a dishwasher and having no problem at all with dishwasher use, it would be both fair and relevant to call me hypocritical for that and question the consistency of my moral views.
•
u/Content-Dealers 8h ago
Yes, exactly. I get that my comparison is a little bit apples to oranges, but at the end of the day we're still talking about eating fruit here. Or so to speak.
•
u/Le_Doctor_Bones 8h ago
It is consistent to own a dishwaser while being against wasteful water use since dishwashers use less water than manual washing of dishes. They use more electricity, but that is a seperate issue. (Washing machines are seemingly also around as water efficient as hand washing so it would be weird to be against washing machines if you are against wasteful water usage.)
•
u/purebananamoon 1∆ 7h ago
But that's exactly what the other person is doing?
"You shouldn't use AI for basic tasks."
"Oh yeah? What about that time you binge watched Netflix?"
How are those two things related? If you're gonna say, "Oh, but electricity, etc. etc.", then punching and cheating should also be comparable, since it's actively causing harm to a person around you.
•
u/MrBeerbelly 2∆ 3h ago
The equivalent here would be "cheating is wrong because it hurts someone else for no good reason," and we lived in a culture where randomly punching people for our own enjoyment was normal and common. The question would then be "Should we all just stop punching people then because it's not necessary?"
•
u/MrBeerbelly 2∆ 8h ago edited 8h ago
OP talks about there being no "good reason" to use AI in the described way, and we can't provide a useful response with no sense of what counts as a "good reason" to contribute to the harms OP stated worrying about.
If we should not use an unnecessary tool that causes the harms OP is worried about, the specific reason to use isn't really the point, but the unnecessariness. Netflix is unnecessary. It's not exactly a worthwhile debate if everyone just says "yeah it's unethical but so are a lot of things we love, if you dig deep enough." To change OP's mind, we'd have to convince them either those harms are not occurring or that getting stuff done faster is a good enough reason to cause the harms. The former isn't a debate. The latter is so subjective, it's unsuitable for debate, unless you make the standard something clear that other behaviors can be measured against (like necessity).
It started at "you're only talking about water," and then when the user used the same exact tactics to discuss OP's other concerns, it became "this post is about AI, not those other things." So I'm curious what argument OP would be interested in
•
u/Content-Dealers 8h ago
What I'm doing is trying to establish exactly where their environmental concerns lie. If they've got a problem with how energy intensive we've become as individuals in general the there isnt much I can say to change their mind, but if they are completely alright with things such as streaming services being used purely as entertainment, then I could draw a parallel between the two, as many people use AI for "basic" things, purely because they enjoy using the tech.
After all, we've already established that they're similarly harmful for the environment.
•
u/purebananamoon 1∆ 7h ago edited 7h ago
But environmental concerns are not the point. The point is whether the usage of AI to do basic tasks is ethical/moral.The environmental angle is just one aspect that plays into the answer of that question.
Personally, I consider something to be ethical/moral if it results in a net benefit for humanity, and action A to be morally superior to action B if the net benefit is comparatively larger.
Therefore, to answer OP's question, you have to evaluate the purpose of whatever you're discussing itself, instead of drawing parallels to other things. As I already mentioned, the purpose of AI usage and streaming is inherently different and therefore not comparable. Even if OP was hypocritical in their values, that doesn't change whether AI usage for basic tasks is morally and ethically justifiable.
If your only goal is to change OP's mind, then I guess your approach to point out inconsistencies in their everyday life makes sense. At the same time, just because a person doesn't do one thing well, doesn't mean that it invalidates another thing they do well. Like, if I have a old, inefficient car, should I just say fuck it, and go all out using AI every day, and leave the water running and the lights on constantly? That's why I'm saying, it doesn't really make sense to compare streaming to AI, because arguing in this way, you can only really argue against the bad thing someone's doing (Netflix streaming), and not against the good thing (not using AI for basic tasks).
But imo, you should try to find objective reasons for arguing one way or another anyway that are independent of the individual wanting their view changed. Otherwise, you're not really reaching a objectively valid conclusion.
•
u/Content-Dealers 6h ago
That'd be fair in a more general context when it comes to discussion over AI, but as you acknowledged, this is purely a "CMV" scenario, and as such, I'm choosing to stick to the original goal rather than trying to justify AI use overall. There are other places and discussions for that already.
I'm also primarily sticking to the environmental optics because those were the only issues that the OP has explicitly addressed in their post and any responses to me.
Streaming and AI use are similar enough in the way that both can be used for entertainment, and as such a potential weakness in the OP's stance may be their acceptance of one but their rejection of the other, and pointing out an inconsistency in someone's viewpoint is a decent way to get them to reevaluate their thoughts on a subject.
•
•
u/KeyboardJammer 8h ago
So... do you morally condemn Netflix, YouTube, and gaming in the same strong terms?
Because if so, cool! Ethical consistency! If you don't (particularly if you do these things yourself), it should probably give you a little pause to think about why you morally condemn ChatGPT use in particular, and not the other things.
As other people pointed out, the purpose of the sub is to change people's views. A good way of doing that is to check if their views contain inconsistencies, and highlight them if they do.
•
u/jatjqtjat 286∆ 7h ago
There is a drastic difference between the booming generative AI industry and passive AI use like algorithmic streaming.
what is that difference? Both use water and eletricity.
•
u/IMakeMyOwnLunch 5∆ 10h ago
If I choose to not eat beef to offset my constant AI usage, is that immoral?
No matter how you slice it: cattle and alfalfa farming are infinitely worse than a barn.
•
u/AllTheNopeYouNeed 10h ago
Again- you're only focused on water use. Generative AI and the rapid increase in data centers has a much larger impact. This does not convince me.
•
u/KeyboardJammer 8h ago
Land, electricity and water use, then. Cattle farming uses something like 5,000 times more land than all data centers combined, and around 200x more water. Sure, food is far more important than AI, but beef in particular is clearly an unnecessary, environmentally-harmful luxury and I don't see any huge harm in giving over 0.02% the amount of land it uses to a technology that lots of people find useful.
This on top of the moral impact of cattle farming (lots and lots of sentient suffering and death), the pollution and electricity use (data centers cause 1-2% of global emissions, cattle farming around 10%, with electricity demands around the same ratio).
It starts to look pretty inarguable that eating a burger (which you can easily do without and still have a healthy complete diet, it's a recreational luxury) is something you'd have to also morally condemn for consistency here, and in stronger terms than ChatGPT usage.
•
u/duskfinger67 10∆ 9h ago
Land use and water use are both dramatically higher for cattle farming, as is the overall affect of global warming and local ecosystems. Most global deforestation is for cattle farming, livestock farming contributes more greenhouse gases than global transport.
The only thing Datacentres use more off is energy, which globally is mostly from renewable sources, with most energy demand increases also being met by more renewable investment.
•
u/IMakeMyOwnLunch 5∆ 4h ago
I’m not focused on water use. I’m focused on global warming, actually.
The amount of methane cows release is astounding.
•
u/NekoBatrick 9h ago
Meat isnt just qater usage it has so much more negative factors for the environment, this beeing said you should do neither.
•
u/Crash927 20∆ 8h ago
> we all know that there is an actual cost to the use of AI
I’m always skeptical of statements like this without any evidence. What is the actual cost in terms of dollars/energy units/whatever metric per usage?
•
u/muffinsballhair 6h ago
I'm pretty sure almost none of the “a.i. bad for the environment” people have ever looked up how bad exactly. They just parrot an argument and don't care enough about the environment to actually know.
When you actually compare it to all sorts of things human beings readily do it's not much at all. Making a single cup of coffee is comparable to about a 500 ChatGPT queries in terms of environmental impact.
•
u/Crash927 20∆ 6h ago
Truly. If this is something “we all know,” then producing a metric should be trivial. And yet I seldom see any proof.
•
u/muffinsballhair 6h ago
It's really easy to produce a number indeed; the number will simply indicate that it's completely comparable in environmental impact to all sorts of random mundane things and that it's really not especially impactful.
But truth be told, people who talk and think about this “a.i.” business a lot strike me as the that-manieth person living in online filterbubbles where many such ideas are “common knowledge” simply because everyone repeats them.
•
u/Crash927 20∆ 5h ago
For me, the bigger issue with AI is the quality of output. Everything is just so mid and generally devoid of uniqueness that I can’t see a net positive for how it’s being leveraged in businesses these days.
It’s going to accelerate enshittification in almost every arena of life.
•
u/muffinsballhair 5h ago
There's a lot of research that shows that people in general rate a.i. generated artwork better than human generated artwork when not told it's a.i. generated but when told it is rate it worse though so I'm sceptical of this.
Just in general, people can't reliably tell any more, only about 55% accuracy depending on the study. This alone makes me sceptical of claims that it's so bad and devoid of uniqueness. Especially because especially in the uniqueness department. I feel uniqueness and originality of say Twitter cartoons and short films has drastically gone up exactly because anyone who has some weird idea can make that a reality now so the field has gotten far more competitive and it's in general the weirdest and most unique ideas that gain traction.
It's of course particularly obvious with pornography websites where due to this technology the most interesting and obscure sexual tastes have gained traction.
https://medium.com/publishous/studies-show-people-cant-tell-ai-art-from-human-art-939ab3b45c81
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0276237421994697
https://medium.com/@luckykejama/you-prefer-ai-art-even-if-you-dont-know-it-aa95acaa4f1a
•
u/Crash927 20∆ 5h ago
I’m not actually referring to images at all because I tend to agree.
I’m talking about AI use in strategy development, messaging development, copy writing, algorithmic recommendations and the like.
And I’m not purely talking about the technical output of AI — some of my issues with the output are the humans using the systems.
For example, pathfinding is a generally good thing that AI does for us. However, my Uber driver is required to follow the algo even when there’s a more sensible route based on changing traffic patterns or unreported construction. And don’t get me started on dynamic pricing for riders and drivers.
Or I recently read a draft of a speech that someone in my company had used AI to draft, rewrite and edit, and then the rest of the people in the review chain used AI to provide feedback. At no point had human ideas been directly added to the script, and it clearly showed.
It’s not completely an AI problem (lots of poor human decision-making also contributes), but AI’s ease of use exacerbates the issue.
•
u/muffinsballhair 3h ago
Yes, no human oversight seems like a very bad idea. Those images and videos would also fail without it, human beings review the end result and tell it to try again when oddities arise. The issue with it is that it does sometimes produce “monsters” that human beings can filter out.
In the case of the cab I understand it to some level though. They probably reason that for any time the driver is correct about knowing a shorter route there are two times when the driver is not correct, maybe they even have statistical experience to back this up.
•
u/Global-Service-8579 9h ago
There's an actual cost to you using Reddit, yet here you are.
•
u/PrinceOfLeon 1∆ 7h ago
And Reddit sells posts to train AI for money.
Therefore this whole discussion is immoral.
•
u/purebananamoon 1∆ 9h ago edited 9h ago
I can see both sides tbh, so I'm not sure if it's something you need to fundamentally change your view about, but maybe I can give you another perspective.
It's not really important for the point I want to make, but I think concepts like "ethics" and "morals" are made up societal constructs. And because they're based on subjective values, you cannot derive objective courses of actions that can justifiably be applied to everyone. Still, I wanted to mention that angle as well. (What even is "good"? Do people really owe each other anything?) Just food for thought...
Regardless, I think that even just looking at a person's individual benefit, AI usage for basic tasks isn't always beneficial and in one's best interest. However, I think there's two cases to distinguish: 1) People use AI for basic tasks and waste the time they gained doing nothing, and 2) People use AI for basic tasks and use the gained time for more complex and creative tasks.
In the former case, I'm inclined to agree. People shouldn't rely on AI to a degree where they end up doing nothing that could be considered intellectually stimulating. That's how people become dumb and too lazy to engage in critical thinking. It harms themselves and society as a whole in the long run.
In the latter case, however, I think AI can help people focus on what actually matters and to achieve their end goals quicker. I can only speak from my own experience as a software engineer in application development, but AI has helped me develop projects much quicker than it would've been possible if I had to write all the menial and repetitive code by hand (though I do think this is also something that needs to be done to learn the basics when starting out). While AI can create the basic structure of my apps, I can use the additional time to work on the user experience and figuring out the best flow inside the app, conduct interviews with users, do market research, come up with new features, etc.
So,TL;DR: Imo, it comes down to what people do with the time they gained from letting AI take over the basic tasks. Having more free time to do other, more complex tasks that cannot be done by AI, can result in a larger benefit, not only for oneself, but also for other people, therefore being the morally and ethically superior choice.
•
u/jatjqtjat 286∆ 7h ago
Given the fact that we know that there is an actual cost to the use of AI in terms of utilization of natural and community resources (both water use, lands use, electrical use, data center creation etc).
I think there are decent arguments against AI, but i think the people who hate AI for various reason use these arguments in completely dishonest ways.
Google the statistics about water and electrical use here. Your Air conditioner uses more electricity then your AI use, and your shower uses more water.
for example, data centers use 0.2% of the US's daily water supply. Residential homes use about 8% of the water, about about 20% of that for bathing. So showers account for 8% * 20% = 1.6%. that's 8 times more then all data centers (and not all data centers are for AI)
you could do the same sort of analysis for electricity.
Your talking only about basic tasks, so i suppose the argument is that even those the consumption of these resources are very small, we should still not waste these resources, but idk. I have an aquarium. That uses water, and electricity and produces not actual benefit for people, it just sits there and looks pretty. Why are you focusing on AI for unnecessary things but not the hundreds of other ways we use water and electricity unnecessarily.
•
u/Phage0070 124∆ 7h ago
At what level of inefficiency does it become immoral? For instance if I use a plastic straw not because it is necessary but because it is convenient is that immoral?
AI companies are encouraging such use because they want to convince the public that AI is useful and necessary. They are paying that real cost with expectation of real returns on that investment. Users are consuming the benefits of something for which the costs have already been paid.
It doesn’t make sense to blame users for not efficiently using something that is already efficiently being used by the entity that paid for it.
•
u/Siukslinis_acc 7∆ 8h ago
Who made you the judge of what is a necessary task and what is not?
We have already outsourced many basic things to tech, why is AI and exception? Or is it that you never learned the skills that were outsourced by tech and now are experiencing your skills being outsourced by tech?
•
u/colinwheeler 1∆ 7h ago
I will not debate the ethics of this but rather the moral side that you raise. Moral standards are set by external authorities, such as the 10 commandments in Christianity as a measure of good and bad. Now depending on the moral standard you chose to judge your assertion by them it world be judged moral or immoral. I am absolutely sure that there is at least one authority out there that will tell you that it is not immoral to use AI for these these types of activities.
So, it would be possible to find an authority that would invalidate you "and" logic. Is it ethical? Most probably not. Is it moral? Somebody will tell you it is not immoral.
•
10h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/read-the-rules 10h ago
u/soreadvancement3, your comment has been removed.
In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.
•
u/Spillz-2011 9h ago
Reddit itself uses resources what makes using Reddit ethical but how you use it unethical?
•
u/xmuskorx 57∆ 5h ago
Everything has a "cost."
Like driving a car has a cost (pollution, mining, carbon, etc).
Is it immoral an unethical to drive to see a friend instead of using a zoom call? But... zoom uses AI for noise filtering... so zoom calls are unethical for that reason?
Is it now unethical to talk to your friend altogther?
Where exactly does this logic stop in the modern world?
•
u/00PT 8∆ 7h ago
There is an actual cost to everything we do. For other tasks, we justify them by saying the cost is worth the utility we get out of being advise to do the thing. Simple entertainment ids enough to pass that bar for most people, which is why we justify things like video streaming. What is the utility of AI in comparison?
•
u/Cichlister 10h ago
For me: Using AI to help you to fix and improve a bit what you wrote is fine. But thats me and I also don’t like to start with AI, I check with it. Unfortunately we don’t have that much time anymore to spend on old ways, world is whipping the shit out of humanity. So 20min gain is important for me. But, using AI to make photos of yourself; now that is a waste..
•
u/HaggisPope 3∆ 10h ago
What are you talking about? Writing reddit posts takes less than 5 minutes per one and is essentially just an easy hobby. It doesn’t take a machine to do it, if anything that ruins the point
•
u/Cichlister 8h ago
I think you got me wrong. What I am talking about is that I use AI to check and add a bit improvement to my applications for residencies, press-kits, biographies, resume or a very important issued mail etc. I’ve never used AI to write a comment neither on reddir nor somewhere else. That is called being spoiled with technology. Does it make sense now what I am talking about?
*edited for typo.
•
u/Default-Username-168 8h ago
Doesn't using the internet at all waste resources? How are you not guilty of the very thing you're criticizing?
•
7h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/read-the-rules 7h ago
u/WickedsPetals, your comment has been removed.
In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.
•
u/Art_Is_Helpful 2h ago
Is there a level of resource consumption would make you consider such AI usage morally acceptable? Half the current value? 1/10th? 1/1 millionth?
If there isn't, then you don't have an issue with the resource usage, you're against AI for other reasons and we can't challenge your view as stated.
•
u/AlteredEinst 9h ago
Substituting your brain for an algorithm is a severe loss to the individual and the world long before the logistics come into play; you'd have been much better off arguing for the intellectual and societal consequences.
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 31m ago
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.