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

281–290 of 425 posts

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#281

Post by adrr »

pembrook wrote: post #272
adrr wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the prompt. Do a video prompt and one 30 second video will use as much electricity as running your microwave on high for 15 minutes.

My guess is that's off by a bit, but sure let's assume that's true. Now measure the amount of electricity the same prompt will use in 6 years when both algorithmic efficiency and 3-4 generations of silicon lower that by 95% (or more). Will your microwave become 95% more efficient over the next 6 years? No. Also how many video prompts will the average person run in a given year? Almost certainly 0. I heavily use AI da…

Are these companies going toss a $500b+ infrastructure investment away in next 6 years? Whats the average lifespan of a AI compute node?

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#282

Post by kazinator »

da_chicken wrote: post #170
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.

But at least that alfalfa gobbles up CO2 from the air.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#283

Post by ssl-3 »

asadotzler wrote: post #269
ssl-3 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. That's not what I said, and you're quite clearly being disingenuously hyperbolic. Let's calm down a bit and bring this back down to earth, shall we? Suppose you buy your groceries from a company. Do you have a right to inspect that company's books to evaluate things like their energy use and their water consumption? Yes? No? Should you have that right?

YES. I should be able to evaluate that, and many supply that. When I buy an iPhone I can see exactly what Apple's recycling and use of recycled materials looks like, for example. Environmental impact doesn't only happen within their walls, it hits us all and they have a responsibility to declare that for anyone to see, not just customers. That you think they should be able to do whatever they want behind closed doors…

> That you think they should be able to do whatever they want behind closed doors

I haven't stated an opinion here at all, nor have I defended anything. I've merely relayed some observations that I understand to be true, and I've asked some questions.

But I shall now allow myself to be opinionated: You doin' ok over there, bud? You seem to be attacking the choir.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#284

Post by redox99 »

stevenwoo wrote: post #273
redox99 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kinda crazy not accounting for precipitation. In fact in my country (Argentina) irrigation for livestock farming is basically non existent.

one of the main drivers of deforestation of Amazon is turning it into land suitable for crops to feed livestock. Most other places can’t use that as a model for growing crops that need irrigation. Two of the main areas in California and the areas used in Utah and Arizona for crops are either deserts or close to deserts.

I don't understand the relation of the Amazon, are you implying the Amazon is in Argentina?

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#285

Post by dangus »

Agriculture feeds people, including people outside of California (California being a huge agricultural exporter to all the other states: find me a grocery store that doesn’t have California agricultural products on the shelves and I’ll Venmo you $5).

Cities are…people. Literally the most important use of water.

So far, AI seems to just put people out of work and enrich a small group of oligarchs who own the technology.

If tech companies want people to change their view away from my above statements above maybe they should spend less time moving to the far right and being hostile to regular people.

We already see that the public perceptions of AI is collapsing: https://www.highereddive.com/news/gen-z-ai-gallup-poll-negat...

Peter Thiel is out there building a military AI surveillance state and basically all the tech billionaires are turning MAGA and anti-democracy.

I don’t really care how much water AI uses, I’m not going to sit back and make excuses for billionaire assholes and their revenue toys. I don’t benefit from AI being embraced by society outside of stuff like cancer research (which was happening before LLMs took over the mainstream).

In reality, the most likely outcome is that I’ll be harmed by AI. I will be replaced by software and the billionaires who replaced me won’t exactly create a utopia, will they?

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#286

Post by malfist »

kazinator wrote: post #282
da_chicken wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But at least that alfalfa gobbles up CO2 from the air.

Until people/animals eat it, or it decomposes. Not saying this like we should ignore the co2 impact from data centers, but biomass is a pretty poor co2 absorber unless its cyano and falls to the ocean floor before decomposing

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#287

Post by thelastgallon »

kazinator wrote: post #282
da_chicken wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But at least that alfalfa gobbles up CO2 from the air.

Goes into cow, comes out as methane. cow dies/meat --> co2. All the fossil fuel transportation for alfalfa to cow to brisket --> co2. Lot more co2 generated than absorbed.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#288

Post by da_chicken »

jlebar wrote: post #276
JoshTriplett wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the issue is not systematically using a pricing structure that charges disproportionately more for usage above high thresholds. The 101-level "solution" is to just raise the price to account for demand. The problem with that is that it treats all usage the same, whether it's a residence's first gallon or an alfalfa field's last gallon. But the former is something we need to protect. It makes sense to price wa…

> Part of the issue is not systematically using a pricing structure that charges disproportionately more for usage above high thresholds. We don't do this for gasoline (in most countries), even though it is also vital for life. And yet people can still drive, afford to eat food grown with fertilizers, use plastic, and so on. Turns out markets are pretty good when you leave them alone. But when they're not left alone…

> We don't do this for gasoline

No, but commercial trucks use diesel, which carries about 25% higher taxes per gallon. And vehicle registration on semi-trailer trucks is significantly higher as well. They pay, on average, between $25,000 and $30,000 in taxes and fees each year.

> Turns out markets are pretty good when you leave them alone.

No, they aren't. They're ridiculously bad when you leave them alone because someone captures the market, ramps up anti-competitive practices, and immediately begins rent-seeking as hard as possible.

Free markets are pretty good at finding good prices. Markets that are left alone do not remain free. That lauded "self-interest" encourages businesses that have reached nearly 100% market share to increase profit in other ways.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#289

Post by thephyber »

jlebar wrote: post #276
JoshTriplett wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the issue is not systematically using a pricing structure that charges disproportionately more for usage above high thresholds. The 101-level "solution" is to just raise the price to account for demand. The problem with that is that it treats all usage the same, whether it's a residence's first gallon or an alfalfa field's last gallon. But the former is something we need to protect. It makes sense to price wa…

> Part of the issue is not systematically using a pricing structure that charges disproportionately more for usage above high thresholds. We don't do this for gasoline (in most countries), even though it is also vital for life. And yet people can still drive, afford to eat food grown with fertilizers, use plastic, and so on. Turns out markets are pretty good when you leave them alone. But when they're not left alone…

Gasoline is absolutely rationed when it becomes scarce after having been plentiful.

When hurricanes come to South Florida, the well off migrate North to wait out the storm while the poor suffer the dangerous conditions. Part of this is due to the price spikes of gasoline in the local market as supplies dwindle due to fewer truck shipments and refineries shutting down for the storm.

Water is similar. Both water rights and water utilities are gamed by people who have resources. The people that are hurt are usually poor utilities bill payers, rural residents who are the first to lose service when wells dry up, and anyone who thinks they have water rights until an upstream user exhausts their expected supply.

The “markets work” heuristic is frequently wrong if you don’t glaze over the very many counterexamples.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#290

Post by adenta »

adrr wrote: post #204
adjejmxbdjdn wrote: post #15

You can go millions of prompts before you use up as much water as it took to make a single beef burger. You can go tens of thousands of prompts to match the C02 emissions. There are many legitimate concerns around AI. Water use/CO2 emissions isn’t currently one of them. Going vegan will make up your AI water consumption/CO2 Emissions many thousands of times over.

Depends on the prompt. Do a video prompt and one 30 second video will use as much electricity as running your microwave on high for 15 minutes.

source?
Post reply on HN