AI DATA CENTERS, GENERATIVE AI AND WATER CONSUMPTION

[ReadYourBible]

Maybe this has been discussed here, but in case it hasn't there may be others like me who don't realize what our simple video and picture creations by AI could be costing the environment. 

 

As irony would have it, I had a chatgpt subscription. I made a ton of stuff with it. So much so that my usage was equivalent to the water needs of a whole household for 3 days! It's easy to think because we've had computers for so long, that this is just more of the same. It is, and it isn't. 

 

Generative AI data centers are often built in towns near watersheds that are crucial to the environment. They consume large quantities of water, we're in the millions of litres now, but as generative AI grows, that number will reach billions of litres.

 

Just wanted to mention it in case you all weren't aware of this. I know I wasn't. 

 

Currently, three of the largest water hogs are Amazon, Microsoft and Google. Of course, they're promising to cut usage -- however, Microsoft has been promising this for 2 decades. 

 

Direct Consumption:  Facilities use open-loop or evaporative cooling systems where water absorbs server heat and evaporates. A medium-sized facility uses about 110 million gallons annually, while large hyperscale AI sites can consume up to 5 million gallons per day in hot climates.

 

Indirect Consumption: Up to 75% of a data center's total water footprint comes from off-site power plants that use water for cooling and steam generation. These come from local watersheds.

 

I'm certainly no expert on this topic, but my personal usage was a lot of water that could be used for other things than creating pictures of myself with lipstick on... 

Edited 1 hour ago by ReadYourBible
I can't count.

[Dages]

How I see this thing is simple,  "What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen"
It uses water, ok. But it works faster and better than everything else, it's cheaper

Let's say a company make a product in less than one hour because of AI, it uses some water, ok, it's what is seen.
But at the same time, what is not seen is that for the same product, it may have taken DAYS/WEEKS of labor to get the same products, that's even order of magnitude more natural ressources and money (people to feed and pay) to get the same product.

[ReadYourBible]

7 minutes ago, Dages said:

How I see this thing is simple,  "What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen"
It uses water, ok. But it works faster and better than everything else, it's cheaper

Let's say a company make a product in less than one hour because of AI, it uses some water, ok, it's what is seen.
But at the same time, what is not seen is that for the same product, it may have taken DAYS/WEEKS of labor to get the same products, that's even order of magnitude more natural ressources and money (people to feed and pay) to get the same product.

I respect your thoughts. However, you may want to do more research. I don't think the trade-off is the same.

I'll keep researching too.