Maybe I can restate my point more succinctly and spare you a pedantic lecture while still having a useful conversation.

1. In the other panels, the act depicted (smoking indoors) is fully identical with the act discussed (smoking indoors).

2. In the AI panel, the act depicted (pollution) is not fully identical with the act discussed (AI). It is closely related, but not identical.

3. The comic therefore undeniably conflates two separate (but indeed closely related) things. This alone is a mistake in the artist's thinking.

4. In your counter-argument with smoking, you make the same sort of mistake. The comic discusses smoking indoors, and then you discuss cigarettes. Cigarettes and smoking indoors are related, but not identical things.

5. We cannot go back from cigarettes, as you agreed. But we can go back from smoking indoors. Similarly: We cannot go back from AI, but we can go back from polluting to produce it.

6. Because the comic conflates the cessation of pollution to produce AI, which is possible, with the ability to go back from AI, which is not possible, the comic mistakenly implies that it is not possible to stop polluting, contrary to its own purpose, hence why I say the artist is confused and makes a flawed case.

I would love it if you could specify what sentiment exactly it is that damages hope for our cause, and what exactly our cause is. My post, in my opinion, expresses a positive sentiment that would increase hope that there can be a future where there's not pollution for the sake of AI. The comic is what damages hope, according to my reasoning above - Although I would never assume the comic was made in bad faith.