this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
79 points (97.6% liked)

Fuck AI

3787 readers
898 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A growing body of research attempts to put a number on energy use and AI—even as the companies behind the most popular models keep their carbon emissions a secret.

Archived copies of the article:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 8 points 2 months ago (5 children)

This and water usage. They're things you hear about a lot but have no convincing proof of. Therefore it's hard to tell exactly how much of it is true or just propaganda. I believe it's as bad as they say, but have no means to argue back against someone claiming otherwise

[–] despoticruin@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

Physics puts some useful limits on things that can be applied here. All of the water used for cooling is considered wastewater, and it is generally treated chemically in a way that is difficult to process back to clean water. Water has a specific thermal mass, and we can see what hardware is being used in these data centers. From personal experience a flow rate of 1.5L/min is standard. Each rack is limited in power not by how much the supply can put out, but by what they can cool.

Even doing napkin math with the Blackwell systems that have been out for a couple of years it is as bad as they say and likely worse with the coolants and passivators going into the water.

I have advised a few water cooled systems, and did some work on Cheyenne in college. Not once was water reclamation even mentioned, it was all pumped right to sewage.

[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 1 points 2 months ago

Far out that's depressing. Thanks for sharing your insight!

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)