Login
You're viewing the mstdn.social public feed.
  • Jun 5, 2026, 8:24 AM

    And then there's the elephant in the room: AI of the chatbot and generative kind needs large amounts of energy. Letting a chatbot check the grammar and spelling of your text costs a million times more energy than the old Word grammar check (I am generous here, likely hundreds of million times). It's a completely UNSUSTAINABLE technology. Data centers are being built everywhere that strain the electricity grid and use water for cooling. AI is a big threat to the energy transition.
    🧵 6/7

    💬 1🔄 15⭐ 24

Replies

  • Jun 5, 2026, 8:27 AM

    To conclude, I feel ashamed by the "AI and sustainability" strategy of the university, I cannot support it. The consultants that wrote the strategy missed two red flags. 🚩1 Some of our most talented professors object! A university strategy should be based on consensus. If your strategy is a comprise, forget it! 🚩2 AI is a horrendously unsustainable technology taking all the surplus electricity we have. You simply cannot have both AI and sustainability: Make up your mind, Radboud University!
    7/7

    💬 2🔄 32⭐ 44
  • Ed.ucatorEdwinvMeerkerk@social.edu.nl
    Jun 5, 2026, 10:23 AM

    @djoerd I coudln't agree more, thank you.
    Plus: if a university wants to profile itself in 2026 and chooses AI to be a discerning characteristic, their view of the research field is rather clouded

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 9
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 5
  • Jun 7, 2026, 9:06 AM

    @djoerd

    > However, any strategy that is a compromise is a failed strategy. A common strategy must have consensus.

    Do you imply there must be absolute, unanimous agreement?

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Jun 7, 2026, 4:00 PM

    @prutser I mean the same level of unanimous agreement as for the "sustainability" strategy. I don't think anyone has objections there, not that I heared of.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 1