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

231–240 of 425 posts

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#231

Post by hugeBirb »

Levitz wrote: post #161
AmbroseBierce wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Bob: "I hate and what they're doing to this cute fluffy animal I would like to do things to stop that"

Tom: "Well actually they're not nearly as bad as to said fluffy creature and if you actually cared about fluffy creature you'd only focus on them"

Great argument. Hate to be the one to tell you this but, two things can be true at once.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#232

Post by Levitz »

pigeons wrote: post #187
Levitz wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

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.

>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.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#233

Post by chatmasta »

loeg wrote: post #185
AustinDev wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don’t data centers use gray water more often? Wouldn’t that be better for basically everyone? My guess is it’s some combination of the infrastructure not existing, the distribution being bad, and the treatment costs not penciling out. But that feels like the kind of thing municipal utilities could solve with pricing. Potable water should probably be priced differently for residential use than for big commercial/i…

> Why don’t data centers use gray water more often? DCs will just use the cheapest source that meets their needs. If they have to treat greywater and that costs more than municipal potable water, they'll use the potable water. (In part this is utilities selling their potable water too cheaply.) > Wouldn’t that be better for basically everyone? No; if it was cheaper for DCs, they'd already be doing it. But it isn't an…

Why do they even need to treat the water? Surely all they care about is that it’s a cold liquid?

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#235

Post by sackfield »

I've always found it quite sad and cringeworthy when people talk about AI's water usage. The first thought that comes to my head is whether its even worth trying to talk the person out of their delusion, or just accept that they are lost and can't be helped.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#236

Post by Levitz »

hugeBirb wrote: post #231
Levitz wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Bob: "I hate and what they're doing to this cute fluffy animal I would like to do things to stop that" Tom: "Well actually they're not nearly as bad as to said fluffy creature and if you actually cared about fluffy creature you'd only focus on them" Great argument. Hate to be the one to tell you this but, two things can be true at once.

And I'm guessing that I'm supposed to believe here that the reason Bob hates explicitly this one company and is dismissing 99% of the damage done to the cute fluffy animal by corporations that seemingly get paid to exterminate them in brutal ways, the reason many people seem to spouse this extremely bizarre, specific belief is "just because" right? Not an obscene amount of hypocrisy and dishonesty?

Because I don't have anywhere near enough brain damage to do that and I'm not sure I can get there in a medically safe manner.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#237

Post by eleventen »

JimDabell wrote: post #42

A much more comprehensive article on this subject is here: https://blog.andymasley.com/p/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake Discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45946966

I was really into Andy's blog when it first came out, but he might be doing the same motivated reasoning he complains about everyone else doing.

https://blog.andymasley.com/p/data-centers-heat-exhaust-is-n...

> The one remaining question: why the clean step change?

In the middle of this piece, he runs into a critical flaw in his reasoning and just shrugs it off.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#238

Post by hugeBirb »

Levitz wrote: post #232
pigeons wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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…

You are a deeply unserious person :'D

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#239

Post by loeg »

chatmasta wrote: post #233
loeg wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why don’t data centers use gray water more often? DCs will just use the cheapest source that meets their needs. If they have to treat greywater and that costs more than municipal potable water, they'll use the potable water. (In part this is utilities selling their potable water too cheaply.) > Wouldn’t that be better for basically everyone? No; if it was cheaper for DCs, they'd already be doing it. But it isn't an…

Why do they even need to treat the water? Surely all they care about is that it’s a cold liquid?

They need it to not clog up their cooling loop, corrode fixtures if the pH is off neutral, etc. It doesn't need to be potable.
Post reply on HN