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

The 500k-ton typo: Why data center copper math doesn't add up

investinglive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 152 posts

Re: The 500k-ton typo: Why data center copper math doesn't add up

#81

Post by pixl97 »

program_whiz wrote: post #25
wongarsu wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each person uses about 100W (2000kcal/24h=96W). Running all of humanity takes about 775GW. Sure, using or not using your brain is a negligible energy difference, so if you aren't using it you really should, for energy efficiency's sake. But I don't think the claim that our brains are more energy efficient is obviously true on its own. The issue is more about induced demand from having all this external "thinking" cap…

Is there an AI system with functionality at or equal to a human brain that operates on less than 100W? Its currently the most efficient model we have. You compare all of humanity's energy expenditure, but to make the comparison, you need to consider the cost of replicating all that compute with AI (assuming we had an AGI at human level in all regards, or a set of AIs that when operated together could replace all huma…

>all human intelligence

So, this is rather complex because you can turn AI energy usage to nearly zero when not in use. Humans have this problem of needing to consume a large amount of resources for 18-24 years with very little useful output during that time, and have to be kept running 24/7 otherwise you lose your investment. And even then there is a lot of risk they are going to be gibbering idiots and represent a net loss of your resource expenditure.

For this I have a modern Modest Proposal they we use young children as feed stock for biofuel generation before they become a resource sink. Not only do you save the child from a life of being a wage slave, you can now power your AI data center. I propose we call this the Matrix Efficiency Saving System (MESS).

Re: The 500k-ton typo: Why data center copper math doesn't add up

#82

Post by pixl97 »

9dev wrote: post #49
blueg3 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Gemini query uses about a kilojoule. The brain runs at 20 W (though the whole human costs 100 W). So, the human is less energy if you can get it done in under 50 seconds.

Where does that number come from? Does it factor in the energy required to build the servers used to train the model? Does it factor in… the training?

There is no end to this energy comparison...

For example does it factor in the 18-24 years needed to train a human and the energy used for that?

Re: The 500k-ton typo: Why data center copper math doesn't add up

#83

Post by sidewndr46 »

NoNotTheDuo wrote: post #74

Amazingly ironic that in an article about a typo, there is a typo. > "Tat sounds like the ultimate catalyst for the commodities market and copper has been hitting records." "Tat" should be "That", imo.

I interpreted the typo as a meta commentary on the state of journalism in the 21st century.

Re: The 500k-ton typo: Why data center copper math doesn't add up

#84

Post by matthewaveryusa »

Fiveplus wrote: post #30

The funniest part is beyond the typo, the complete lack of physical intuition from the analysts who circulated this. 500,000 tons is roughly the weight of 1.5 Empire State buildings. If your rack busbars weigh more than the structural steel of the facility housing them, you have a geotechnical engineering crisis on your hands. It is wild that we reached a point where financial modeling is so decoupled from physical r…

Just to make it even more real: During covid I added a sub-panel and the wire (more like the sausage given the girth) between the sub-panel and main panel was aluminum because of cost. You just need to be a tad careful at the connection points with copper -- nothing a caring literate person can't handle

Re: The 500k-ton typo: Why data center copper math doesn't add up

#85

Post by nirui »

crote wrote: post #27

With regards to the copper market: it keeps surprising me that some people seem to assume copper is a hard requirement for conducting electricity. In reality copper is just convenient . We use it because it's easy to work with, a great conductor, and (until recently) quite affordable. But for most applications there's no reason we couldn't use something else! For example, a 1.5mm2 copper conductor is 0.0134kg/m, whic…

> In reality copper is just convenient. We use it because it's easy to work with, a great conductor, and (until recently) quite affordable

It's convenient, it's easy to work with, great conductivity, and cheap enough all at the sametime... Dude, I think you just explained why cropper is used instead of anything else.

Re: The 500k-ton typo: Why data center copper math doesn't add up

#86

Post by amtamt »

zekyl314 wrote: post #78
NoNotTheDuo wrote: post #74

Amazingly ironic that in an article about a typo, there is a typo. > "Tat sounds like the ultimate catalyst for the commodities market and copper has been hitting records." "Tat" should be "That", imo.

I saw this too, awesome to report on a typo when you yourself have a typo. What are the odds?

but one weighs half a million ton ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: The 500k-ton typo: Why data center copper math doesn't add up

#87

Post by sidewndr46 »

bradfa wrote: post #79

With a higher voltage you can reduce your copper needs by a substantial amount. Seems if copper cost was a concern this would be what these data centers would do.

Agreed. I was kind of surprised to see 54 VDC mentioned. I am assuming this is low enough to meet some threshold for some kind of safety regulation. In other words, it doesn't shock you just 220 VAC would. I'm not entirely convinced of that however as it turns out bus bars are really dangerous in general. A 54 VDC bus bar won't shock you, but if you drop even a paperclip between the bus bar and a metal part that is grounded it basically disappears instantly in a small blast of plasma. The injury from that can be far worse than any shock you'd receive.

Re: The 500k-ton typo: Why data center copper math doesn't add up

#88

Post by ironbound »

literalAardvark wrote: post #31
ironbound wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLM's are why we're in this mess, they can't do math or count r's

They can't do math? ChatGPT 5.2 has recently been churning through unsolved Erdös problems. I think right now one is partially validated by a pro and the other one I know of is "ai-solved" but not verified. As in: we're the ones who can't quite keep up. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.07421 And the only reason they can't count Rs is that we don't show them Rs due to a performance optimization.

You can feed it the Hodge Conjecture for all I care, the current algorithms are a joke and without real breakthroughs your just generating left to right text with billions in hardware.

Re: The 500k-ton typo: Why data center copper math doesn't add up

#89

Post by CamperBob2 »

nine_k wrote: post #10

> If the "half a million tons" figure were accurate, a single 1 GW data center would consume 1.7% of the world's annual copper supply. If we built 30 GW of capacity—a reasonable projection for the AI build-out—that sector alone would theoretically absorb almost half of all the copper mined on Earth. Quickly doing such "back of an envelope" calculations, and calling out things that seem outlandish, could be a useful f…

Nobody on HN is a bigger AI stan than I am -- well, maybe that SimonW guy, I guess -- but the truth is that problems involving unit conversions are among the riskiest things you can ask an LLM to handle for you.

It's not hard to imagine why, as the embedding vectors for terms like pounds/kilograms and feet/yards/meters are not going to be far from each other. Extreme caution is called for.

Re: The 500k-ton typo: Why data center copper math doesn't add up

#90

Post by kergonath »

potato3732842 wrote: post #40
kergonath wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s one of the useful functions of an engineer.

It's almost always the engineers, analysts and MBA spreadsheet pushers and other people removed from the physical consequences outputting these mistakes because it's way easier to not notice a misplaced decimal or incorrect value when you deal in pure numbers and know what they "should" be than you are the person actually figuring out how to make it happen the difference between needing 26666666.667 and 266666666.667…

Around here, asking "does this number make sense?" when coming across a figure is second nature, reinforced since early in engineering school. The couple of engineers from the US that I know behave similarly, which makes sense because when your job is to solve practical problems and design stuff, precision matters.

> difference between needing 26666666.667 and 266666666.667 of is pretty meaningful

To be fair, that’s why we’d use 2.6666666667e7 and 2.66666666667e8, which makes it easier to think about orders of magnitude. Processes, tools and methods must be adapted to reduce the risk of making a mistake.

Post reply on HN