3 ms·
Again, defensive HN commenters respond to facts about water consumption by citing other sources of water consumption But fail to consider that "AI" adds to tho
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 2mo ago
Again, defensive HN commenters respond to facts about water consumption by citing other sources of water consumption
But fail to consider that "AI" adds to those sources and raises total water consupmtion
Is total water consumption important
Perhaps the comparision that readers will make is not (a) existing non-"AI" water consumption versus "AI" water consumption but (b) total water consumption without the additonal "AI" data centers versus total water consumption with additional "AI" data centers. IOW, "before" versus "after"
Will readers ignore (b) and only think about (a)
It's the same response from HN commenters every time: compare "AI" data centers to some other water consuming activity
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2mo ago*additional
- preg_match 2mo agoThe rise in meat consumption in the past year is already double the TOTAL data center consumption of water. Look at that very carefully - the few percentage points rise in meat consumption consumes more water than all data centers in the entire country. When it comes to the rise of total water consumption like you’re talking about, data centers are a drop in the bucket. Truly negligible.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2mo agoTo be clear, referencing other sources of water consumption is sleight of hand, a well-recognised diversionary tactic It's like when some Silicon Valley company is breaking the law and HN commenters attempt to defend/excuse the behaviour by pointing at other offenders. This is a juvenile response Something like "See, they do it, too." or "They need to investigate [not a "tech" company] first." If the amount of water used by "AI" data centers was "negligible" then, one might expect, "AI" companies would be transparent about water usage instead of forcing the public to estimate