Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's your point? That some actual improvements to the lives of people will accelerate climate change, and thus we should not pursue it? If so, OK, let's find another way that doesn't consume 300+ watts per GPU for thousands of GPUs. Again, let's go -- let's see some actual technical progress. But we don't have that. We're stuck. And that's what the original article says and I support its thesis.
What's your point? What's my point?
My point was pretty clear I thought: that what @gwern says is not true is actually true.