I find the environmental argument is always a weak one to make, though. CO2 emissions for non-AI datacenters peaks currently around 210 million tons, with AI datacenters peaking currently around 100 million tons.
So why is more pollution from subject A acceptable, but less from subject B isn't?
I've seen people say because A gives "something of worth", but then that just undermines the whole point of being harmful to the environment. Destruction of the environment is kinda an absolute in that instance, the source shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether or not we accept it.
The same for the water usage thing (which was debunked). AI datacenters use 68 billions gallons annually (at least by 2028 projected). People are upset about that, but not about the 26 trillion gallons that US agriculture uses. All because "something of worth", but if it's that big of a deal why are people focusing on less than 1% of the total consumption? How is that 1% needing protected but the remaining 99% totally disposable?
I find the electric usage one to be strong. If you have a lot of data centers near, your electric will go up.
Similarly, if you have a data center near you, your water bill will go up, and your well may dry up.
Data centers are demanding incentives from governments across the country with promises of lots of jobs, but they just need the people to supplement their low usage of utilities.
That is a valid point, I think. That isn't "but what about the environment" but only when convenient. That is local pricing issue which has a very direct and very trackable impact.
If a datacenter opens next door to you, the utility consumption goes up meaning your bill goes up. Unless the datacenter operators are somehow offsetting that increase financially (and that the money is actually be allocated by the city for that purpose), then there is the real impact of datacenters.
I completely agree.
apotheotic@beehaw.org 18 hours ago
I contain multitudes. I can protest the mass growth of datacentres for other industries as well as for AI.
I hadn’t mentioned water usage, but since you bring it up, AI datacentres are being plopped down willy nilly and sucking up all the water from their local area, causing drought. Thats one stark difference between it and agriculture, which isn’t having the same kind of local effect.
However, the US (and other) agriculture+ industry (again, I contain multitudes) doesn’t get a pass. Estimates vary, but it looks like about 30-50% of US agriculture water usage goes to feed which is destined for livestock for the meat industry. I’d say that a person can be both against AI and an outspoken vegan against the meat industry, wouldn’t you?
TehPers@beehaw.org 16 hours ago
Before AI, people had been advocating against the meat industry, and had pushed for reduced water usage in agriculture and homes, which led to stricter rules against lawns in drought-prone areas. It being drowned out by the advocacy against AI doesn’t mean those voices disappeared, just that there are louder voices now.
I do enjoy the classic “they’re doing bad so I can too” fallacy, though.
apotheotic@beehaw.org 15 hours ago
I’m confused, it seems we agree with eachother - did you mean to reply to the person I replied to, or were you just adding on to my point? :D
TehPers@beehaw.org 7 hours ago
Just adding to your comment lol.
Mordikan@kbin.earth 9 hours ago
"they're doing bad so I can too"
I don't think you understand that the "so I can" part implies you. By virtue of even posting, YOU are pushing datacenter demand. These comments don't just live in the ether. The whole point is you are cherry picking what you are upset about based on what is trending (as you even mentioned). The point being you are MORE upset about the lesser evil, not that one is justified evil and the other isn't.
If you enjoy the Two Wrongs Make Right fallacy, then I think you'll love the Special Pleading fallacy.
TehPers@beehaw.org 7 hours ago
I write software for a living. There’s an enormous difference between a text-based service that functionally runs as a primitive CRUD and a compute-heavy service like LLM inferencing. The latter runs on servers that individually consume multiple kilowatts while the former can run on a raspberry pi but gains efficiency by sharing a server that consumes maybe 1kW with dozens of other people. Heck, Lemmy doesn’t even need to do video transcoding like all the toxic social media sites do.
No, people are upset about all the evils. Being more or less upset about one or the other is irrelevant. You’re just choosing to cherry pick one thing that everyone who’s upset should ignore.
Mordikan@kbin.earth 9 hours ago
AI datacenters do not cause drought. There is no evidence to support that claim. And if you think you do have evidence, I would love to see the source.
And you totally can contain multitudes. People should be like that. But they in practice aren't. They follow what is trending. For example, if you look through your comment history how many comments will be pertaining to the US meat industry? How many to datacenters?
I would argue that you care a great deal more about one than the other. Which, going back to my original point, why is that 1% more important than the remaining 99% (or specifically the 50% that you care so much about)?
apotheotic@beehaw.org 5 hours ago
I don’t have evidence on hand, but I have read compelling scholarly articles previously on the matter. Feel free to disregard this discussion point if that’s a dealbreaker.
Your argument would be incorrect, as I have been vegetarian for over 2 decades and vegan for the last 5 years. I’ve just found that trying to sway people online about the meat industry is a fool’s errand, whereas I have had decent success in having constructive conversations about the harms of AI. My meat industry related efforts are focused primarily on face to face interactions.
My stance on AI isn’t based on what’s “trending”, except for the fact that it, as a pretty existential threat in its current trajectory of resource usage, job displacement, and market “growth”, is rapidly starting to infest every aspect of my life. So yes, the trend that AI is following is causing my stance on it to be pertinent to a growing number of conversations.
I’m curious though, what would I have to be doing for you to believe that I’m… I dont know, “allowed”? to talk about AI’s water usage impact?
Mordikan@kbin.earth 3 hours ago
I would say you are starting to approach an opposing view as treating yours as "wrong thought" when confronted. That is an absolutest method that is only ever used to justify what you think is right and vilify all else. It isn't a matter of what is "allowed". There is no restriction to that. But if you put out an idea or belief that can be deconstructed and proven incorrect/incomplete, then people have the right to speak against it.
There are lots of points you can make that are completely valid and evidentiary by nature, but AI water usage isn't one of them. It has been debunked to point that I would bucket it into the same group that "vaccines cause autism" fit into.