3 ms·

There was massive controversy about that so I don't know how good counterexample it's that. Unless the argument is "we already waste a lot why would you care ab

There was massive controversy about that so I don't know how good counterexample it's that. Unless the argument is "we already waste a lot why would you care about wasting more??" Which is not a great argument.

tptacek 5mo ago
The point of the counterexample is a huge component of US agriculture, massively dwarfing data centers in water use, doesn't serve the core needs proposed by the top comment.
- dylan604 5mo ago
  The farming water usage already exists. The data centers do not. Adding more on top of what farming is using is not going to help. We can prevent the data centers, so that's where the push back is. I'd be on board if for every data center a farm gave up the amount of water to use in that data center. Instead of carbon offsets, we'll let them purchase water offsets. Of course that's not a serious answer.
  - Matticus_Rex 5mo ago
    If our water rights system required farmers to actually pay anything approaching market rates for the water they used, it actually would be a serious answer! Farmers grow alfalfa in the desert and drain the western US's aquifers and rivers because we have insane water rights doctrines that entitle them to trillions and trillions of gallons of free or almost-free water far in excess of what the watershed regions can bear. If we don't change that system, data center water usage is a rounding error that is barely noticeable at the scale of the problem. If we do change that system, data center water usage isn't a problem at all.
  - yongjik 5mo ago
    > The farming water usage already exists. The data centers do not. Adding more on top of what farming is using is not going to help. We can prevent the data centers, so that's where the push back is. Well, to me, this sounds basically like "Jeff Bezos already exists, this school does not. Increasing the government budget to build a school here is not going to help our finance, so that's where we will push back." (I don't think Jeff Bezos should lose all his money, but he could definitely pay more tax.)
    - xigoi 5mo ago
      How does building a data center, which benefits a single company, compare to building a school, which benefits the general public?
  - deaux 5mo ago
    Private jets already exists. Your new EV still doesn't. Adding more emissions on top of what private jets are using is not going to help. We can prevent the new EVs. Scale matters, and you're completely ignoring it. A single hamburger takes about 2,500 liters of water to produce. The US eats a lot of them and produces a lot of them.
Levitz 5mo ago
It's not explicitly a great argument, but it's an excellent premise to set. Because this whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with pollution or water. It has to do with people hating AI and looking to portray it negatively. The proof is that if they actually cared, there's a million better places to put their efforts into. It is not an honest issue and it deserves no attention. The vast, vast majority of people talking about how terrible this is for the environment deserve to be ignored first, scorned later.
- pigeons 5mo ago
  There aren't a million better places to put efforts into. This is a good place to put effort into stopping because it isn't yet entrenched, and you stop the other negative effects besides just the pollution and water use, and you can build a coalition with the people against the other negative effects of AI.
  - Levitz 5mo ago
    >This is a good place to put effort into stopping because it isn't yet entrenched Oh yeah, excellent place to put effort, it's not entrenched, it's just straight up against technological giants in a race that is considered relevant for national security. That should be easy yeah, outstanding target to set. >and you stop the other negative effects besides just the pollution and water use, and you can build a coalition with the people against the other negative effects of AI. I'll just repeat myself here: >Because this whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with pollution or water. It has to do with people hating AI and looking to portray it negatively.
    - hugeBirb 5mo ago
      You are a deeply unserious person :'D
      - Levitz 5mo ago
        You are insinuating that a fight against tech giants is the preferable option regarding pollution and I'm unserious??
eloisant 5mo ago
The point is that we should start by working on the bigger waste. If agriculture represents 1000x the consumption of AI, even cutting the AI water usage by half would have the less impact than reducing agriculture water usage by 0.02%

tptacek 5mo ago

The point of the counterexample is a huge component of US agriculture, massively dwarfing data centers in water use, doesn't serve the core needs proposed by the top comment.

dylan604 5mo ago
The farming water usage already exists. The data centers do not. Adding more on top of what farming is using is not going to help. We can prevent the data centers, so that's where the push back is. I'd be on board if for every data center a farm gave up the amount of water to use in that data center. Instead of carbon offsets, we'll let them purchase water offsets. Of course that's not a serious answer.
- Matticus_Rex 5mo ago
  If our water rights system required farmers to actually pay anything approaching market rates for the water they used, it actually would be a serious answer! Farmers grow alfalfa in the desert and drain the western US's aquifers and rivers because we have insane water rights doctrines that entitle them to trillions and trillions of gallons of free or almost-free water far in excess of what the watershed regions can bear. If we don't change that system, data center water usage is a rounding error that is barely noticeable at the scale of the problem. If we do change that system, data center water usage isn't a problem at all.
- yongjik 5mo ago
  > The farming water usage already exists. The data centers do not. Adding more on top of what farming is using is not going to help. We can prevent the data centers, so that's where the push back is. Well, to me, this sounds basically like "Jeff Bezos already exists, this school does not. Increasing the government budget to build a school here is not going to help our finance, so that's where we will push back." (I don't think Jeff Bezos should lose all his money, but he could definitely pay more tax.)
  - xigoi 5mo ago
    How does building a data center, which benefits a single company, compare to building a school, which benefits the general public?
- deaux 5mo ago
  Private jets already exists. Your new EV still doesn't. Adding more emissions on top of what private jets are using is not going to help. We can prevent the new EVs. Scale matters, and you're completely ignoring it. A single hamburger takes about 2,500 liters of water to produce. The US eats a lot of them and produces a lot of them.

Levitz 5mo ago

It's not explicitly a great argument, but it's an excellent premise to set. Because this whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with pollution or water. It has to do with people hating AI and looking to portray it negatively. The proof is that if they actually cared, there's a million better places to put their efforts into. It is not an honest issue and it deserves no attention. The vast, vast majority of people talking about how terrible this is for the environment deserve to be ignored first, scorned later.

pigeons 5mo ago
There aren't a million better places to put efforts into. This is a good place to put effort into stopping because it isn't yet entrenched, and you stop the other negative effects besides just the pollution and water use, and you can build a coalition with the people against the other negative effects of AI.
- Levitz 5mo ago
  >This is a good place to put effort into stopping because it isn't yet entrenched Oh yeah, excellent place to put effort, it's not entrenched, it's just straight up against technological giants in a race that is considered relevant for national security. That should be easy yeah, outstanding target to set. >and you stop the other negative effects besides just the pollution and water use, and you can build a coalition with the people against the other negative effects of AI. I'll just repeat myself here: >Because this whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with pollution or water. It has to do with people hating AI and looking to portray it negatively.
  - hugeBirb 5mo ago
    You are a deeply unserious person :'D
    - Levitz 5mo ago
      You are insinuating that a fight against tech giants is the preferable option regarding pollution and I'm unserious??

eloisant 5mo ago

The point is that we should start by working on the bigger waste. If agriculture represents 1000x the consumption of AI, even cutting the AI water usage by half would have the less impact than reducing agriculture water usage by 0.02%