Realism says that even the sky has limits. Whatever is dependent on matter must accept limits. For water, only seven percent of the world's water is fresh and hence usable for AI. The UN would be one source for this fact. With this simple fact accepted, another basic question that a reasonable person should ask is, for what is AI to be used, if operations are presumed to to be constant, 24/7? After that, who will consider whether the objects of AI are more valuable to people and the environment than the resources needed by human and other living beings that most people believe should take percedence?
Put simply, is information about anything more valuable that the wellbeing of humans and other living things that support and enhance life? A further elementary question would be, how many data centers are actually necessary, especially in light of key ethical issues on which depend the lives and wellbeing of a growing world human population? Maybe other basic questions should be asked, in any sequence of questions? Who owns AI, who pays for it, and will the general public (voters and legislators) take precedence over persons and corporations that have financial profit a a key motivation?
The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority decided that corporations are equivalent to people, but that rather recent decision is often debated by many with less conservative stances. That decision has given the richest people and corporations more practical communication power than the rest of the general public has. Numerous people object to the plutocratic implications of that decision. And so legislative possibilities are worth debating on AI and its related concepts.
Fortunately Pepsi, Coke and Nestle are the three largest bottled water owning corporations in the world and they are standing by to keep everyone hydrated.
Those companies are taking more freshwater than the AI data centers are, and probably more than all data centers and their associated power plants combined.
Golf courses use up 30 times more water than AI data centers and their power plants. Just cutting 5% of the water given to golf courses could supply all AI data centers and their power plants with water and then some.
Golf isn’t even useful. It’s a rich man’s sport. Why is nobody protesting that? You know why they use them so much water? Because they want a luxury brand of grass on their greens. That’s what gobbles up most of the water. Slightly nicer grass. If they were required to use a more ordinary type of grass, we’d have enough water to supply AI for years to come.
So let’s get rid of one of the drawbacks of AI, the waste of clean water, so we can focus on other problems, like using clean energy to run .AI centers.
Realism says that even the sky has limits. Whatever is dependent on matter must accept limits. For water, only seven percent of the world's water is fresh and hence usable for AI. The UN would be one source for this fact. With this simple fact accepted, another basic question that a reasonable person should ask is, for what is AI to be used, if operations are presumed to to be constant, 24/7? After that, who will consider whether the objects of AI are more valuable to people and the environment than the resources needed by human and other living beings that most people believe should take percedence?
Put simply, is information about anything more valuable that the wellbeing of humans and other living things that support and enhance life? A further elementary question would be, how many data centers are actually necessary, especially in light of key ethical issues on which depend the lives and wellbeing of a growing world human population? Maybe other basic questions should be asked, in any sequence of questions? Who owns AI, who pays for it, and will the general public (voters and legislators) take precedence over persons and corporations that have financial profit a a key motivation?
The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority decided that corporations are equivalent to people, but that rather recent decision is often debated by many with less conservative stances. That decision has given the richest people and corporations more practical communication power than the rest of the general public has. Numerous people object to the plutocratic implications of that decision. And so legislative possibilities are worth debating on AI and its related concepts.
If you are outraged by data centers, then here’s a fun exercise in critical thinking:
Cite the percent of US freshwater used by AI data centers, including water used for their electrical generation systems.
Cite the percent of US freshwater used by Agriculture.
Cite the percent of US freshwater used by golf courses.
Calculate the corrective impact of data center water usage if golf courses were required to take a 10% cut in water use.
Research progress made in cooling systems for data centers.
Do those things first, then discuss.
Good luck, Texas the state that is desperate for water experiencing droughts has triple degree heat 3 to 4 months of the year!
Fortunately Pepsi, Coke and Nestle are the three largest bottled water owning corporations in the world and they are standing by to keep everyone hydrated.
Those companies are taking more freshwater than the AI data centers are, and probably more than all data centers and their associated power plants combined.
Golf courses use up 30 times more water than AI data centers and their power plants. Just cutting 5% of the water given to golf courses could supply all AI data centers and their power plants with water and then some.
Golf isn’t even useful. It’s a rich man’s sport. Why is nobody protesting that? You know why they use them so much water? Because they want a luxury brand of grass on their greens. That’s what gobbles up most of the water. Slightly nicer grass. If they were required to use a more ordinary type of grass, we’d have enough water to supply AI for years to come.
So let’s get rid of one of the drawbacks of AI, the waste of clean water, so we can focus on other problems, like using clean energy to run .AI centers.
AI will turn out to be more dangerous than nuclear weapons or the Lyin' King.