Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Thirsty' ChatGPT uses four times more water than previously thought

thetimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 105 posts

Re: 'Thirsty' ChatGPT uses four times more water than previously thought

#11

Post by exe34 »

MrMcCall wrote: post #8
comboy wrote: post #3

Not sure if that' more than a person sitting in the office writing this when you take into account all electricity used by the building, maintenance, other people (catering cleaning etc.) And I think this energy-shaming whether that's AI crypto or something else is just a wrong approach. If somebody buys energy he can use it for mindless entertainment if he so pleases, why focus on datacenters and not Disneyland?

ChatGPT is not housing anyone, nor is it providing office space. Even Disneyland is at least providing joy for children and adults.

chat gpt doesn't enjoy anything for itself, it provides value to people. i don't use it much, but on occasion it's been helpful to me.

Re: 'Thirsty' ChatGPT uses four times more water than previously thought

#12

Post by go_elmo »

MrMcCall wrote: post #8
comboy wrote: post #3

Not sure if that' more than a person sitting in the office writing this when you take into account all electricity used by the building, maintenance, other people (catering cleaning etc.) And I think this energy-shaming whether that's AI crypto or something else is just a wrong approach. If somebody buys energy he can use it for mindless entertainment if he so pleases, why focus on datacenters and not Disneyland?

ChatGPT is not housing anyone, nor is it providing office space. Even Disneyland is at least providing joy for children and adults.

I agree - it has no direct use to the wellbeing of humans - Id say if the indirect use (e.g. humans saving time [which itself is probably the most energy intensive thing, food, housing, entertainment], gaining knowledge has to surpass the costs in Order for the investment to make sense.

Re: 'Thirsty' ChatGPT uses four times more water than previously thought

#13

Post by p2detar »

From the article:

> Using the chatbot for between ten to 50 queries consumes about two litres of water, according to experts from the University of California, Riverside.

From ChatGPT:

> A single BTC transaction consumes approximately 1,000–1,500 kWh of electricity, with cooling processes for fossil fuel and nuclear power plants using about 2–3 liters of water per kWh. This translates to an indirect water consumption of around 2,500–3,750 liters (660–990 gallons) per transaction, depending on the energy mix.

If accurate, I still prefer ChatGPT.

Re: 'Thirsty' ChatGPT uses four times more water than previously thought

#15

Post by Klaster_1 »

More data-center demand means more energy and water demand. Can this in turn incentivize in-situ water reclamation/desalination and energy generation (solar, nuclear), driving down prices for both? Maybe one day, data centers will crystalize cities around them - like mono-cities of USSR, but way more robust. You can even think of these as oasis of some sort!

Re: 'Thirsty' ChatGPT uses four times more water than previously thought

#16

Post by robertlagrant »

MrMcCall wrote: post #8
comboy wrote: post #3

Not sure if that' more than a person sitting in the office writing this when you take into account all electricity used by the building, maintenance, other people (catering cleaning etc.) And I think this energy-shaming whether that's AI crypto or something else is just a wrong approach. If somebody buys energy he can use it for mindless entertainment if he so pleases, why focus on datacenters and not Disneyland?

ChatGPT is not housing anyone, nor is it providing office space. Even Disneyland is at least providing joy for children and adults.

Disneyland also involves a lot of plane flights and driving to get to it. If you add all that up it's a lot more.

Re: 'Thirsty' ChatGPT uses four times more water than previously thought

#17

Post by MrMcCall »

exe34 wrote: post #11
MrMcCall wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT is not housing anyone, nor is it providing office space. Even Disneyland is at least providing joy for children and adults.

chat gpt doesn't enjoy anything for itself, it provides value to people. i don't use it much, but on occasion it's been helpful to me.

So do coal-fired power plants. So does our endless production of plastic waste and our ever-growing landfills. So does all our fossil-fuel use.

Where is it all taking us, friend? Most people are not honest enough with themself to understand the bigger picture, nor are they selfless enough to give a darn to sacrifice something of their own benefit to help the whole.

Re: 'Thirsty' ChatGPT uses four times more water than previously thought

#18

Post by go_elmo »

exe34 wrote: post #11
MrMcCall wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT is not housing anyone, nor is it providing office space. Even Disneyland is at least providing joy for children and adults.

chat gpt doesn't enjoy anything for itself, it provides value to people. i don't use it much, but on occasion it's been helpful to me.

The question is how much value. Sure, learning about entropy & unblocking students is huge value - producing clickbait content does way less so imo

Re: 'Thirsty' ChatGPT uses four times more water than previously thought

#19

Post by AstralStorm »

jiggawatts wrote: post #2

The water doesn’t disappear. Most data centres use water in their chiller units, as do many large industrial facilities. ChatGPT is a minority of the energy, heat, and cooling budget of Azure, which is a minority of the world’s data centre footprint. ChatGPT is useful. This article is not.

Further, it could run on air cooling, just the water or other liquid medium is easier to handle in scale.

Re: 'Thirsty' ChatGPT uses four times more water than previously thought

#20

Post by MezzoDelCammin »

comboy wrote: post #3

Not sure if that' more than a person sitting in the office writing this when you take into account all electricity used by the building, maintenance, other people (catering cleaning etc.) And I think this energy-shaming whether that's AI crypto or something else is just a wrong approach. If somebody buys energy he can use it for mindless entertainment if he so pleases, why focus on datacenters and not Disneyland?

I think the idea behind energy shaming is that energy price rarely includes its externalities (probably resources depletion and pollution). "If You buy it, You do what You want with it" is of course legally correct. But I think the argument they're trying to make subconsciously in is that there's someone else who will have to pay part of the price for it.
Post reply on HN