[palata]

> In his mind, he thinks

If people have to analyse what "he probably meant" and how "he probably thinks" because what he says is completely stupid, to me it's not a good sign.

> Even if he is right

Well he is obviously not, his analogy is completely stupid. What you try to rationalise as being "probably what he meant" cannot exactly be right or wrong, it's a bit philosophical. If the goal is to get as productive (or "useful") as possible before we as a species completely collapse, then maybe training a new model is as productive as 3000 people on average.

Now if the goal in life is that most living things are better in the long run, being productive is the opposite of what works. Again we are living a measurable mass extinction right now, that is happening orders of magnitudes faster than the famous one of the dinosaurs. We are failing at surviving as a species, and we are so good at it that we are making most other species fail to survive.

If "his philosophy" (again, the one we have to interpret because he is incapable of articulating something that makes sense) is that "the goal of our species should be productivity and not survival", then I can confidently say I disagree. But that's already giving him a lot of credit from this analogy.

[aurareturn]

He's thinking like an AI CEO. I don't think his goal is to eliminate 3,000 human births so he can use the energy to train a new model.

In his mind, he must be thinking that I can train a model that uses as much energy as 3,000 humans so that it can be used by billions of humans. He thinks it's a positive statement.

Again, the optics are bad. Read between the lines. I can see how most people are offended by his statement.

[palata]

I don't know what he is thinking. I know what he says. And what he says shows that he has no clue about the energy problem.

> it can be used by billions of humans

Unless we have an energy problem, which is precisely what he does not seem to grasp. People who are concerned about the energy consumptions are concerned precisely because it is a problem. And if we are really generous with his answer and start replacing what he said by what we want to believe he said, then the conclusion is that he is very naive and doesn't understand the problem at all. And that's the generous case where we completely ignore what he said.