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

291–300 of 425 posts

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#291

Post by davidgerard »

Springtime wrote: post #107

While a couple months back an article[1] discussed how Google was keeping the water requirements a secret from locals who wanted transparency, claiming it was proprietary knowledge. So they sued and discovered it will use 2-8 million gallons of drinking water per day[2], seemingly near the limit of their capacity to handle, judging by comments from officials. > 'That water supply that otherwise would not be required…

author of Pivot to AI here. The impacts are local, but real bad for those localities.

Also, the fact that the AI hyperscalers will sue to keep the usage secret isn't something they're doing 'cos the usage looks good.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#292

Post by pembrook »

adrr wrote: post #281
pembrook wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Obviously no. AI is nowhere near as ubiquitous as the microwave so adoption is still scaling.

But as chips improve and the algorithms improve (eg. a paper just came out about getting the same results with 90% less inference using a few algorithmic techniques...on top of the fact we've already had multiple 90% efficiency jumps in AI already) the energy use per prompt will drop over time.

Meanwhile energy use per microwave minute will not meaningfully improve over time. So to make the comparison is silly.

And to pretend like the efficiency of AI will never improve given it runs on compute which by definition constantly becomes more efficient, is dumb.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#293

Post by greekrich92 »

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.

Ok great let's get rid of non-renewable powered AI _and_ stop eating animals.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#294

Post by _heimdall »

My understanding so far is that water use in LLM data centers ranges from not much at all to more than a medium sized city. It always comes down to how one chooses to calculate it, and more fundamentally what story they're wanting to tell.

Gotta love statistics.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#295

Post by cma »

da_chicken wrote: post #288
jlebar wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 so…

Heavier commercial trucks that run on diesel tend to cause more damage. Scales with roughly 4th power of axle load.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#296

Post by [deleted] »

JuniperMesos wrote: post #256
gensym wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, it's weird to me how fixated both sides are on water. People against data centers overestimate water usage, but people who think we should build as many as we can, as fast as we can seem the think that "actually they don't use that much water" somehow negates the more real issues with them.

What are the real issues with them in your estimation? Anti-data-center people bring up water use as a reason why the government should legally prevent data centers from being built, and pro-data-center people bring up water use to argue against the anti-data-center position. I agree that the anti-data-center people are overestimating water usage, as well as the degree to which the amount of water data centers do use…

[deleted]

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#297

Post by BosunoB »

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…

We don't need AI in the same way we don't need washing machines and dryers. Like, sure, we don't need a machine to do our laundry, just like we don't need an AI to do our skilled labor, but it sure saves us a lot of time and energy.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#299

Post by marshray »

He really saves the best bit for last, doesn't he?

> my breathing in making the blog post above might well have evaporated more water than occurred (incrementally) from all four AI estimates.

Clearly his continued breathing is not as much of an "economically effective use of water" as AI. If clean water ever becomes a scarce resource in California, thankfully he's already done the ChatGPT queries needed to justify cutting back on 68-year-old Emeritus Distinguished Professors.

Re: AI uses less water than the public thinks

#300

Post by FireBeyond »

xvedejas wrote: post #207
somewhatgoated wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it legal? Shouldn’t water be the most regulated (as in protected) substance of all?

It's quite regulated in the western US, but usually in the direction of guaranteeing water to incumbent landowners. Some people end up with really strong water rights, and they can be wasteful if the law helps them do so.

A big celebrity, I think one of the Kardashians was a couple of years ago fined and forced to update things when the city found that the big fountain in the front of the home had no recycling or such, but was effectively just an open faucet because I guess keeping it algae free was proving a hassle.
Post reply on HN