Hard to miss the articles about that. I realize that and don’t think it’s an actively good thing, but ultimately this is a matter of market forces. I don’t find that an especially good argument, they’re buying water and energy like all other participants on the market.
I dunno, it seems in a lot of places, regular people in the communities where the data centers are being built are footing a significant part of the water and energy bills even though they consume way less.
It’s not even really market forces, because they’re using investor money to push AI for free or way below what it costs. We have a ton more AI than market demand for it.
The real reason it’s not the best argument is the exaggerated relative scale of those issues and plausible fixes. Water use in particular is orders of magnitude lower than other industry, only a serious issue if building it in a really bad location. The electricity use is enough to raise prices for people nearby which could be a good reason to oppose local government allowing them to be built, but they can get around that by expanding grid capacity themselves to make up for it, and even better if they did it with renewables.
It’s a good argument for holding datacenter builders accountable for doing it responsibly, but a flawed one for unconditionally opposing AI.
Hard to miss the articles about that. I realize that and don’t think it’s an actively good thing, but ultimately this is a matter of market forces. I don’t find that an especially good argument, they’re buying water and energy like all other participants on the market.
“Market forces” gave us:
Like, cmon. Who still believes that markets are self-regulating?
I dunno if he will change it’s mind but it is a good argument
I dunno, it seems in a lot of places, regular people in the communities where the data centers are being built are footing a significant part of the water and energy bills even though they consume way less.
They’re draining all the water out of communities where people live. Because they bribed politicians to allow them to do so.
I suppose as long as they pay their bills, they can do anything they want. Let’s not care about how it affects the general population or the planet.
It’s not even really market forces, because they’re using investor money to push AI for free or way below what it costs. We have a ton more AI than market demand for it.
The real reason it’s not the best argument is the exaggerated relative scale of those issues and plausible fixes. Water use in particular is orders of magnitude lower than other industry, only a serious issue if building it in a really bad location. The electricity use is enough to raise prices for people nearby which could be a good reason to oppose local government allowing them to be built, but they can get around that by expanding grid capacity themselves to make up for it, and even better if they did it with renewables.
It’s a good argument for holding datacenter builders accountable for doing it responsibly, but a flawed one for unconditionally opposing AI.