top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 3 points 3 hours ago

This has been debunked a million times already 🥱

  • source
  • [–] [S] 18 points 17 hours ago (5 children)

    I don't think water argument is real tbh

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 15 hours ago* (4 children)

    Yeah, how is the water being consumed? Presumably it's used for cooling the servers but does this result in some kind of contamination where it's no longer useful elsewhere?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

    Yeah anything that's flushed through dirty industrial cooling pumps is going to pick up lubricants, dust, pesticide, microplastics from parts rubbing against each other, basically all the industrial stuff that works it's way into the system which will get worse with age, and they'll have to put nasty chemicals in it to keep slime from growing.

    Basically it's not drinkable and you wouldn't want to shower in it and nothing except slime can live it until its diluted enough.

    Will they clean it before dumping it back into the environment every time they flush the system? The answer is no. They won't.

    And the idea that it won't use that much water because they'll "recycle" it in a closed system is also bullshit. They will have to flush it all the time because water that's kept like that will foul no matter what you to do it and it will start to clog filters and cause issues. So yeah lots and lots of clean water in and lots and lots of nasty water coming out.

    Oh yeah, and when the dumped dirty water evaporates, all the contaminates are left on the ground and will start to concentrate until it starts to be a bigger and bigger problem. It will get blown around into people's yards and crops and into food, pets, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 7 hours ago

    "Chillers and cooling towers are at the heart of most large data center cooling setups. The chiller cools down water, dropping its temperature before it heads to CRAH units or other cooling coils.

    Cooling towers push this heat out to the open air, usually by evaporating water. Pairing these together lets chilled water systems handle much bigger loads than just using CRAC units alone.

    Key components include:

    • Chillers: Make chilled water for cooling coils
    • Cooling towers: Get rid of heat from the chiller’s condenser water loop
    • Pumps: Move water around between units and throughout the system

    Chilled water systems are efficient and can scale up, but they do need a big upfront investment and regular maintenance. They’re the go-to for hyperscale and enterprise data centers where uptime and energy use really matter."

    In industrial cooling applications, chilled water is run over massive radiators to dissipate heat more efficiently. This usually causes a good portion of the water to be evaporated. The problems with these massive data centers is that they can pump millions of gallons of groundwater a day only to be evaporated to the atmosphere. They end up pumping more groundwater than can be restored naturally, causing groundwater levels to fall which leads to all sorts of other issues.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 14 hours ago (1 child)

    Technically it's been used for light industrial purposes, which makes it non-potable after usage. It needs to be run through the treatment and testing cycle again to be fit for human consumption.

    That would be a bigger issue if people were expecting to drink from the cooling tap, or if most of them didn't use grey water to begin with.

    The water has moved through tubes not necessarily rated for human consumption, and exposed to moderate temperatures.
    Most is used in the construction of the datacenters or for air conditioners. It's not used per query at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 hours ago

    Yeah, that's what I figured. Maybe there's a lot of water in the system but it's not being consumed. I get people are pissed about their water bills going up but that's a different issue of the company being forced to pay it's share. Not consumption.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 14 hours ago

    Aaaaand it's nothing compared to the rest of the economy.

    You'll never see percentage of water consumption only flashy gallons liters or olimpic pools

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (9 children)

    This has been done to death; that's not how water consumption works in a datacenter and most of the water quotes you hear are about construction not operations. Yes there are outliers and cases of running off tap but those are exceedingly rare and usually taken out of context. The water use just flat out isn't an issue, or at the very least isn't a substantial one.

    Electrical power, heat, and noise pollution, on the other hand,...

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (2 children)

    Yeah, it upsets me when I see people posting completely batshit reasonings to make a point that is totally reasonable in the first place. It dilutes the argument against hyperscale datacenters and AI.

    I did the math a while back because my workplace was talking about using more AI, and I'd need to run about 50,000 queries to copilot to use the same amount of electricity that it took to drive my car to work. If everyone using AI got one extra work from home day, it would more than offset their AI usage for an entire year.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 child)

    Me: prompts a frontier LLM one time to do 30 minutes of my work in 45 seconds

    Randos on the internet: "omg you're killing the planet"

    Me, who once left a Minecraft technic modpack game running in the background while I had a 2hr goon session, consuming orders of magnitude more power for nothing productive:

    awkward puppet monkey gif

    Yeah, there are lots of reasons to hate AI, and resource consumption is absolutely one of them; but people seem to miss the forest for the trees when it comes to exactly what parts are problematic

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 17 hours ago*

    Shiiiiiiit

    I've got this chonker running a couple of game servers, I can hear it humming away through a wall right now. If I scrapped this machine and switched over to AWS or Azure, it would save so much electricity.

    Like fuck I'm gonna do that though, cloud machines are expensive.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 17 hours ago (5 children)

    The water use just flat out isn’t an issue

    It's an enormous issue when you're on the hook for inflated municipal water bills.

    But I'll concede "you posted an image, so you're responsible for $100B in sunk costs" is just scapegoating.

    The resources are wasted whether or not a given individual makes an AI Slop flyer for their local Swingles spouse swap meet up.

    Electrical power, heat, and noise pollution, on the other hand,…

    Also all big issues.

    But it's kinda crazy to tell people who have seen their water bills jump $50+/mo the day after construction breaks ground that "Um, aktuly, water isn't an issue".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] 18 points 20 hours ago (11 children)

    This is only a good argument if we also hate on other technically not necessary things that use a lot of water. Otherwise, we're being hypocrites who only ever require personal responsibility if it doesn't affect us.

    By the way, what's the environmental impact of your cheese burger? About a bajillion times higher. But that requires you to change.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (11 replies)
    [–] 89 points 1 day ago (18 children)

    I mean even disregarding the environmental cost, it’s rapidly accelerating our decline from the “Information Age” where knowledge about anything can be found in an instant to the “Disinformation Age” in which it’s impossible to tell what is fact from fiction because information is overflowing everywhere but most of it is bullshit.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 day ago* (15 children)

    Ended up ruining my soup the other week because I got the recipe from someone using AI. Can't even follow 2023+ video recipes anymore because the creator might have used AI to plan a video with an inedible recipe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 20 hours ago (1 child)

    I've been having a hard time finding videos with any human on certain subjects lately. I'll see a video with a ton of views and a few seconds in a realize the voice is too perfect and vacuous sounding, and that the entire thing is an AI. I'm not even sure if the comments are humans either.

    With video or written media I've started looking for imperfection as a metric for quality. It feels so good to watch a YouTube channel that is a normal dude with a shitty camera talking about something interesting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (12 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 40 points 1 day ago* (27 children)

    Most of those numbers shouldn't be hard to validate, but a reliable source for the 16oz number (how much a single AI prompt uses) would be appreciated. A search turns up a lot of sites I've never heard of (or are unreliable), so I don't know how reliable they are.

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 55 points 1 day ago (17 children)

    Its nonsense.

    a) 16oz is 0.5 liters. To evaporate 0.5 litres from 20c to 101c you need 361 Wh of energy. An nvidia B300, top out at 1400W. In order for a single prompt to use 361Wh on a B300, the prompt needs to take 15 minutes to run. Thats clearly not happening.

    b) Even when water is used to cool GPUs, it isn't destroyed. Its heated, and then cooled down again. The water just moves heat around the system, it doesnt get destroyed

    https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/water-heating

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Okay, while I do suspect the 16oz number is pulled from someone's ass (or just very old, many efficiency improvements ago), there are a couple of things to consider:

    a) A single B300 won't even run frontier models. It only has 288 GB of HBM. The DGX B300 server has 2.1 TB, which I suspect is not enough either (running Qwen 3.8 Max lossless (BF16) requires 4.9 TB just to load the model). But these are run in clusters anyway and any single user's prompt only uses a tiny percentage of the compute from tons of servers. OpenAI and Anthropic are going for size with their models so the most expensive ones probably need even more than Qwen.

    b) While the GPUs themselves are directly cooled by closed loops, the water inside those closed loops is often cooled by evaporative coolers, or even AC and evaporative cooling in tandem (that allows the evaporation to happen outside the datacenter itself). That's because evaporative cooling is the most energy efficient form of cooling.

    There are companies offering very complex heat systems that take advantage of multiple forms of cooling because they're making 100+ kW racks these days and talking of 500-1000 kW racks in the future. Ridiculous numbers, honestly.

    This is from some company's website that offers cooling solutions: Notice the outside "cooling tower" - those can be dry or wet. In a hot and dry climate, you'd want wet. It'll cool really well. In a colder and more humid climate, dry might work better. They also optionally let you heat the aquifer apparently, which is bound to cause issues for everyone living nearby over time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago

    The b300 figure is to give a sense of scale, its clearly more on the order of milliliters per query than half a liter.

    Evaporating water into the atmostsphere is really just recirculating it, it hasn't spoiled the water or destroyed it.

    The problem with the 16oz number is that its so clearly wrong that is discredits any other valid arguments. If complaints about ai resource usage want to be taken seriously, forget the water "usage" and worry about the gas/coal/diesel generators pumping carbon directly into the atmosphere. Because that is far more concerning that water getting cycled through the water cycle.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (15 replies)
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 3 points 20 hours ago

    How did they go from 16oz per prompt to 163 000 000 000 gallons of water?

    1 prompt = 16 fl oz = 0.125 gallon^[1]^
    1 year = 163 000 000 000 gallons^[1]^

    163 000 000 000 (gallons) / 0.125 (gallons/prompt) = 1 304 000 000 000 prompts

    Number of customer = 900 000 000^[2]^
    1 304 000 000 000 (prompts) / 900 000 000 (customers) = 1449 prompt per customer (rounded up from 1448.888888..).

    If all customers did 1 prompt/s it would take 24 minutes 9 second to reach 1 304 000 000 000 prompts (9 hours if they did it once per minute). That is by no means unfeasible but the number feels very arbitrary.

    1: From the image
    2: https://www.getpanto.ai/blog/openai-statistics

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    I don't understand the point the post is trying to make.

    Accelerating climate change due to increased water vapour in the atmosphere I guess? The post seems to imply that the water disappears but it's not like fracking where the water is no longer retrievable or contaminated afterwards. The pollution to the water from data centres would be heat pollution (also bad, but again, that doesn't seem to be what the post is talking about).

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›