> It seems like you are having an emotional response to not understanding the general energy picture. This is condescending and rude. It also strikes me as obv

> It seems like you are having an emotional response to not understanding the general energy picture. This is condescending and rude. It also strikes me as obviously wrong. The 'response' isn't emotional in the slightest; it just explains the emotional and cognitive experience of acquiring understanding. It's a reasonable, well-reasoned explanation of the difficulty of intuitively grasping how much energy these data centers, and thus the companies that use them, consume -- and then of the shock many experience when it dawns on them. > For example, an A320 aloft uses the same energy as two thousand of your hypothetical racks (2.5 tons of kerosene per hour). > Each! > We are in no meaningful sense torching the biosphere to get AI. What exactly is the reasoning here? That airplanes use a lot of energy, just like data centers or compared to data centers, and therefore that AI isn't ecologically damaging -- or isn't "meaningfully" damaging, whatever that means? That's not just wrong. It's a nonsequitur. There's a simpler, easier, better way to wrap our heads around the data, one that doesn't require false dichotomies (or something like that): humans are torching the biosphere both to get AI and to travel.