I'd kinda rather have almonds than data centers, If I could choose.

The CA almond industry is a great example of perverse market incentives in need of regulation, which makes it a great analogy in this case.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/business/energy-environme...

This comparison sounds to me like it is downplaying the significance of the numbers. California's almond-growing is another gross environmental crime, which is regularly controversial in California.

I agree with your link that the unsustainable use of water for almond farms causes problems, and agree that these problems are quite similar to that of water use for AI, so both should have high scrutiny. Quoting your link:

> Almonds use roughly the same amount of water as total indoor water use in California. This is unsustainable.

> There are simply too many almonds being planted in areas with unsustainable water supplies (minimal to no groundwater, uncertain or no surface water). ...

> We’re not opposed to growing almonds; we’re opposed to growing them unsustainably and taking water away from the environment and our cities. Almonds are a luxury and export crop; approximately 70% of the state’s crop is shipped abroad for the express benefit of a handful of industrial-scale growers and hedge funds.

> Water is a public trust resource, and Californians must regain control of it as they face a future certain to be beleaguered by drought, low reservoirs and over-drafted aquifers. We can't continue to subsidize agribusiness plutocrats with the water ratepayers need for basic survival.

Water for AI also uses unsustainable water supplies, directs water away from the environment and our cities, and is subsidized for big tech plutocrats paid for by water ratepayers. It also sure seems to me that most AI use falls in the "luxury" category.

I'd be willing to bet almonds bring more joy to more people in a single year than AI data centres ever will.

It’s always backwards presumption: “No testing for Pfas air or water pollution has yet been done, and companies are not required to report the volume of chemicals they use or discharge.”

I'm probably being dense, but if it's closed loop, why is that a problem?

The paper refers to "indirect water use in electricity generation, and water-intensive semiconductor manufacturing".

Water use in electricity generation is significant. In the England we are in the middle of a drought and it is surprising to realise that electricity generation uses 2.5x more ('environmentally extracted') water than public supply and 10x more than agriculture.

I stumbled on that as well. I thought that water is used to cool but not consumed such as oil is - even I see the ecosystem problem of warm waste water. However, what doesn’t remove drinking water, right?

Even if the water evaporates, it will enter the ecosystem as such and eventually end up as liquid water again. Or am I totally mistaken?

The last datacenter I stepped inside (an FB datacenter in the southwest), they were very proud of how the whole thing operated as a giant swamp cooler. Unclear how they could have been limiting their losses all that much, given the evaporative stacks were open to the outside breeze

One can criticize ai data centers but the "water consumption"-argument is by far the least-intelligent one and on track on becoming the same kind of populist urban myth that got Germany cancelling (ie destroying) its nuclear plants in order to... checks notes.... save the world.

The systems used for LLMs are several times more power-hungry than traditional servers. Like, 50-100kW per rack of B200s.

lol no, if this is the case then we would have banned beef: a grossly inefficient protein source that takes absurd amount of energy and water, and produce significant greenhouse gas waste. We would also ban disposable cheap goods.

Yet we don't.

If people don't like AI, they should just say so, no need to skirt around.

Additionally, using more water allows datacenters to be more energy efficient because evaporative cooling uses less energy than dry cooling. Datacenters outside of water stressed areas should absolutely being using water because doing so is better for the environment.

The eagerness of the corps to switch from "we're all green" to 'fuck Earth with AI' is stunning. I was always suspicious towards the 'corporate left' but this one takes the cake. We must never trust those people again.

I agree energy use is the more concerning issue, while water has probably caught more press because it's more tangible. But there's no getting around thermodynamics. That "wasted energy" is dissipated using large amounts of water.

>Water is an easily dismissable strawman that sloppers love to bring on.

unreal fucking chutzpah. even here, where current thing activists do occasionally get challenged with indisputable evidence debunking their wild claims, they still stubbornly cling to the water narrative. on reddit and other spaces populated by the intellectual majority, it's gospel that every chatgpt query consumes a lake.

"Wasted" is a word people use to mean "used for a purpose I personally do not value".

Try persuading people to share your values.

...I don't think you can declare that something is a non-issue without having spent at least some resources to determine whether it is?

I think one of the more interesting points is this:

> Two-thirds of post-2022 data centers are located in water-stressed regions.

I don't think it's wrong to ask questions about that _IF_ you also ask questions about all the other usages of water, like the Californian almond stuff.

Just saying "You shouldn't use AI because it uses too much water" is kind of ridiculous.

For who?

Misconception of the year. If you can guarantee the steam it produces rains down in areas that actually re-join the water cycle easily, you might be right (even though you still have to cover the just in time demand). You can not guarantee that though.

Best regards, European person where lakes dry out atm.

> I agree that water is an important resource but the wording of "consumption" always rubbed me the wrong way

While the Earth is (mostly[1]) a closed system when it comes to water, any particular region on Earth is not a closed system with respect to clean drinking water.

Deplete groundwater reserves faster than they refill? No more water for you. Raise the ambient temperature far enough that the rainclouds go somewhere cooler? No more water for you. As long as your usage is below the replacement rate, all seems well. Imbalance the system, and you have indeed "consumed" your local water supply.

> Is the water contaminated with chemicals? Maybe heat?

Typically yes. Definitely yes.

> Can people or wildlife consume it?

With enough water purification infrastructure, sure. I'm not aware of very many datacenters installing such infrastructure.

> Can you use rainwater?

It's all rainwater, whether directly or indirectly. The question is what would have benefited from that rainwater had it not been redirected to a datacenter?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape

You can't drink it once it's gone through a bunch of mouldy pipes, no.

The water use is for cooling and sometimes includes indirect use for electricity generation. But before you call it "insane amounts of water" consider that the 700.000 liters quoted for training GPT-3 is less than 1 time spraying a 9 acres field, which is the size of a tiny hobby farm not a real farm.

The use is definitely for cooling, but I'd also be curious to know what happens to the water later. If it's a closed loop circulation, the water should be returned back to the environment, just warmer than it was originally. Surely that wouldn't be so bad?

This statistic doesn't show the disproportionate effect it may have on local communities close to these AI datacenters.