I see that this got at least one downvote, which I guess indicates that someone thinks it's an unfair (or at least insufficiently-justified) complaint, so let m

I see that this got at least one downvote, which I guess indicates that someone thinks it's an unfair (or at least insufficiently-justified) complaint, so let me try to justify it a bit. So, to me, "AI is exhausting the power grid" means something like this: The datacentres running AI models are consuming so much power that existing power generation capacity is no longer sufficient, producing (at least the danger of) power cuts, brownouts, etc. Here, by contrast, is what the article says (in order of appearance). Everything is paraphrased. Some quotations are lightly massaged for brevity and clarity. 1. The Columbia River has long provided hydroelectric power, "but the AI revolution will demand much more". (This is about what AI allegedly will do, not what it is doing.) 2. Microsoft and other big tech companies are investing in experimental energy generation: nuclear fusion, small-scale fission, geothermal, etc. (Fine, and it connects to the second half of the title that isn't in the HN title: "Tech firms are seeking a miracle solution". But no evidence of what AI is alleged to be doing.) 3. Someone called Tamara Kneese claims "Coal plants are being reinvigorated because of the AI boom". (This is about what AI is alleged to be doing, but it's just reproducing someone else's claim and provides no evidence that it's right, no numbers, etc.) 4. Lots of datacentres are being built. (Link to an earlier WP article, which in no way links this to AI and in fact says it's been going on continuously for many years.) "Some worry" that there won't be enough electricity for them. (Again, about the future. No indication of who worries. No evidence, no numbers.) 5. "The amount of electricity they need now is soaring because of AI". (Again, no citations, no evidence, no numbers.) A ChatGPT query is more expensive than a Google search. (True.) Meta has a datacentre complex that consumes a lot of power. (Surely true, but again doesn't really connect with the title's claim. They don't even offer any evidence that this datacentre runs any AI tasks at all.) 6. Big tech companies like to talk about sustainability and low emissions, even though their datacentres consume electricity some of which is produced from fossil fuels. (True, but nothing to do with claim in title.) 7. Some people associated with AI, such as Sam Altman and Bill Gates, also think there will be breakthroughs in clean energy production. (True, but, y'know.) 8. Many paragraphs saying that tech companies talk about renewable/sustainable/clean energy production but consume energy from the national power grid, some of which comes from e.g. coal-fired power plants. (True, but again no connection with title claim and, really, what is actually supposed to be wrong here?) 9. Some fossil-fuel power plants in Utah were going to be closed but are now going to stay operating for longer. (No connection to title claim. In fact, no evidence of any connection with tech at all.) Meta is building datacentres in the area. (OK.) Etc., etc., etc. The article gives plenty of evidence that tech companies have datacentres that use electricity, and that some electricity comes from fossil fuels. It suggests (and quotes a few people claiming but not providing evidence) that a lot of that electricity is for AI these days. It offers absolutely no evidence that anything is "exhausting the power grid", nor that if the power grid is being exhausted it's because of AI. It talks about some connections between tech companies and novel clean energy projects that may or may not ever work out, and apparently we're supposed to think that that's a bad thing somehow?