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

AI uses less water than the public thinks

californiawaterblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 425 posts

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#161

Post by Levitz »

AmbroseBierce wrote: post #138
Petersipoi wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> have to eat to live Oh, so that's why we're growing alfalfa in the middle of deserts, flooding the fields with excess water so we can keep water rights, and then shipping the alfalfa to China. It's so we can eat!

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.

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.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#162

Post by skywhopper »

bee_rider wrote: post #38

I don’t really get the water concerns in datacenter cooling. Even if a lot of water was used for cooling with every prompt (which he argues against here, but, even if )… water “used up” by cooling just comes out a little hotter, right? Maybe evaporated. Then it’ll come back in the form of rain. This isn’t an industrial chemistry process that leaves some toxic waste in the water. Or an agricultural one that puts water…

The rain doesn’t happen directly above where it evaporates. And “slightly warmer” waste water can have major ecological impacts, destroying native life in the lakes and rivers where the wastewater is ejected. Plus, if the water is taken away from underground aquifers that may not be refilling fast enough, or if it’s taking water from downstream users, that’s something to be concerned with.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#163

Post by kitsune1 »

legitster wrote: post #70

> Using the prompt, “How much water is likely to evaporate from data centers in California per year, assuming they are all using mostly evaporative cooling?” several free AI websites provided ranges of estimates, below. These AI also can provide ranges and sources for calculation assumptions. Data centers with closed loop cooling systems are absolutely built all of the time. Total evaporative cooling has the advantag…

[dead]

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#164

Post by satvikpendem »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #136
matthewfcarlson wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the article it lists a data point that beer production in Arizona used more water than the data centers in Arizona. People may vehemently disagree, but we absolutely do not need beer. Would I trade beer for AI? That's an easy choice, AI every time. If you just keep track of the water to keep a person alive and the bare minimum water required for agriculture (which isn't particularly efficient in most cases), it wo…

Beer has been around for like a thousand years and we haven't decided to get rid of it. We're five years into this fever dream and everyone either literally hates AI or has been driven at least a little crazy by it. It's a pretty darn easy choice for me (and most people I imagine).

Beer is a physically addictive mind altering substance, so of course we haven't decided to get rid of it (because it literally drugs you), but people go sober all the time because they know how bad it is.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#165

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #159
therobots927 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you not read that the effect was directly tied to “Individuals living within water service areas” in my original comment? Yeah no shit it’s pesticides. They’re seeping into the water supply from the golf course runoff. Datacenters expel water filled with all kinds of heavy metals and other kinds of toxic sludge. https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/sustainability/4-strateg... It should be pretty obvious the parall…

It is in fact not obvious what parallel you're drawing here. What parts of this study do you find especially credible, methodologically?

[deleted]

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#166

Post by bastardoperator »

parsimo2010 wrote: post #69

Comparing water usage of AI to agriculture and cities is a little misleading. The cities' water usage is to keep people alive with basically mandatory things, like hygiene, and drinking. Agricultural water usage is required because we have to eat to live. Don't compare something optional to something mandatory. Instead, compare AI water usage to that of optional things in a city, such as car washes and water parks. O…

My understanding is that data centers (at least in LA) are using mostly grey/industrial water, not water you can consume or use for agriculture. It feels like we're measuring water as one entity when not all water is equally useful to a human.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#167

Post by agentultra »

phil21 wrote: post #143
trollbridge wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those of us by the Great Lakes would prefer that our water not get sold to other places, thanks.

Not all of us. I'm totally fine with water pipelines in exchange for long distance transmission lines for solar power and other such infrastructure like gas pipelines from areas that produce stuff we do not. Export an abundant resource for a scarcer one seems win/win to me. Kind of the point of interstate commerce.

Long term, fresh water as a resource is in decline [0].

[0] https://science.nasa.gov/earth/earth-observatory/global-fres...

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#168

Post by trvz »

lxgr wrote: post #128
Petersipoi wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> have to eat to live Oh, so that's why we're growing alfalfa in the middle of deserts, flooding the fields with excess water so we can keep water rights, and then shipping the alfalfa to China. It's so we can eat!

Yes, and now please cut the non-essential philosophical discussion, the server hosting this site doesn't run on thought experiments alone either. This comment could have been someone's hamburger!

This site, if not overly wasteful, fits onto a single 1U server. A single car is more damaging than such a server.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#169

Post by eloisant »

AmbroseBierce wrote: post #138
Petersipoi wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> have to eat to live Oh, so that's why we're growing alfalfa in the middle of deserts, flooding the fields with excess water so we can keep water rights, and then shipping the alfalfa to China. It's so we can eat!

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.

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%

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#170

Post by da_chicken »

legitster wrote: post #70

> Using the prompt, “How much water is likely to evaporate from data centers in California per year, assuming they are all using mostly evaporative cooling?” several free AI websites provided ranges of estimates, below. These AI also can provide ranges and sources for calculation assumptions. Data centers with closed loop cooling systems are absolutely built all of the time. Total evaporative cooling has the advantag…

Yeah, there are alfalfa fields in central Arizona. Alfalfa basically turns water and sunlight into cellulose about as quickly as plants can.

Worse, the owners of those fields are often foreign companies. That means they use tremendous amounts of water in one of the driest regions on earth, in the middle of a multiple decade drought, and the wealth these farms generate disappears overseas.

Post reply on HN