Thread

1. _heimdall · 1791153753 · focus · HN ↗

   People shouldn't be latching onto side effect costs of AI data centers like water or energy use, it seems like an abstraction layer above the core complaint. If we don't want AI, or LLMs, or data centers that should be the complaint. Once it is abstracted to water use or similar it opens the door for data to show the actual water use is comparatively small.

   Its like arguing about climate change by zeroing in on carbon emissions. The issue people should be raising is wasted energy, over consumption, not knowing "enough", etc. Once the issue is pinned to a single externalized factor the argument lives or dies by that factor.

   1. fasterik · 1791155026 · focus · HN ↗

      I agree with your first point but not the analogy. Climate change is causally related to carbon emissions; if we had 100% carbon-free energy, there would be no concern with waste beyond inefficiency. Data centers can increase electricity/water prices, but it's not a linear relationship like climate change. Prices can stay constant or even go down if we increase supply by building more infrastructure, or decrease demand by limiting how much non-residential buildings can pull from the network. But yes, the conversation about utilities is ultimately more of a proxy for political frustration. If data centers became 10x more efficient, the same people would find something new to complain about because they're fundamentally against the technology itself.

      1. _heimdall · 1791169837 · focus · HN ↗

         I'm not actually sure where you land on climate change being causally linked.

         Don't get me wrong, I think carbon emissions matter but primarily because we should simply do better if we can. But I've never found a study that proves causation, at best its correlation shown primarily through modeling.

         That doesn't mean we should stop trying to reduce carbon emissions, but it does mean that reducing carbon specifically isn't guaranteed to reduce or reverse climate change.

         Surely you must agree thst such a complex system as the global climate can't be driven by a single factor, or a single element on the periodic table.

         1. fasterik · 1791181956 · focus · HN ↗

            I'd suggest you have a conversation with AI about the greenhouse effect and IPCC's methodology on attributing post-19th century warming to human activities.
   2. hinkley · 1791155813 · focus · HN ↗

      When laws are unjust, resistance is duty. And you usually have to come at them sideways, to delay while the wheels of justice slowly grind toward repeal.

      Legislation gets easier once public opinion has turned against an idea or a company. But it takes a while to build that up.

      1. fasterik · 1791156668 · focus · HN ↗

         Which laws are unjust in this context?
      2. _heimdall · 1791169915 · focus · HN ↗

         I think I may agree with you here, but in this context can't you add more details? Your comment here is pretty high level and not specific to this topic or how we might go about trying to handle it.
   3. [deleted] · 1791175614 · focus · HN ↗

      [deleted]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.