This is a bit of a dead horse, but the magnitude of how off the public is on this continues to amaze me. Pete Buttigieg did a Tulsa town hall a week or so ago where someone cited it taking "10,000 gallons of water just to generate one photo".[0]
The other part of this problem is the idea that if you disagree with someone about the facts you're interpreted as disagreeing with them about the thing they're mad about: You disagree that AI somehow destroys fifty billion-trillion gallons of pure water every time someone asks Claude something, therefore you're fully in favor of Grok making nudes of underage girls.
Some people get an Angry. They love their Angry, and nobody will take it from them.
Honestly, it's weird to me how fixated both sides are on water.
People against data centers overestimate water usage, but people who think we should build as many as we can, as fast as we can seem the think that "actually they don't use that much water" somehow negates the more real issues with them.
Water is pretty scarce in some of the places they want to build these things. I know people in West Texas that own ranches that have been approached by the datacenter people and it’s basically a desert, oil industry consumes a lot of their water, and the public water they get in the city smells toxic, the well water is flammable. So water use is concerning and I don’t think there’s any reliable or trustworthy source for them to use as a gauge for what to expect so they have to ask.
What are the real issues with them in your estimation? Anti-data-center people bring up water use as a reason why the government should legally prevent data centers from being built, and pro-data-center people bring up water use to argue against the anti-data-center position. I agree that the anti-data-center people are overestimating water usage, as well as the degree to which the amount of water data centers do use is a problem; and that they're doing so because they have some other objection to data centers that doesn't sound as convincing. It would be better to talk about those issues.
Because it is an easy concrete way to stir up reactionary sentiment. The real issues are debatable but complex. But the common folk can all visualize a gallon of water.
Not only that they are trying the same playbook as what was done to nuclear. A new technology comes and activists try to instill fear so as to murder the tech in its baby crib.
The world would be better without nuclear technology! Yes, it can be used to generate electricity in a much cleaner way than other technologies, but its potential to kill so many people has shaped geopolitics for generations. If we could get the energy without the destruction, that would be ideal, of course. But there's an unacceptable chance that nuclear weapons will kill everyone I care about.
I think AI is actually similar. It's really useful for all sorts of stuff - I'm running multiple agents writing code as we speak. But it's also going to make the world much more dangerous by giving people the ability to kill and spy like never before.
That's populism for ya, and it's sadly extremely effective.
Meanwhile, both China and India are giving free electricity, providing dollar-for-dollar capex subsidizes, and 25 year tax exemptions to build data centers [0][1].
Love how HN wants to strangle the infrastructure that underlies our entire industry and why HNers get paid. It really highlights how much of the opposition to AI comes from the "chattering classes" and other white collar types as is constantly seen in polling [2][3].
It's funny seeing people who are also part of my party but told coal miners and autoworkers to "learn to code", treated blue collar workers derisively, and ignored concerns by employees in manufacturing and skilled trades which led them to shift to the right now act the exact same way.
Edit: can't reply
> AI Datacenters are not how all or probably even most HNers get paid
Most data centers colo multiple types of compute, not just those dedicated to inference or model training. Additonally, strangling the economics of the infrastructure layer makes entire ecosystems move abroad.
You saw similar opposition to semiconductors fabs back in the early 2010s in the US, and the entire ecosystem virtually out within a decade until the CHIPS act was signed and executed on.
Same with nuclear power in Germany and GreenTech in much of the America.
Populism is effective because the proverbial rising tide is not lifting all boats. AI is currently driving yet another extreme wealth inequality inflection point. Founded just five years ago, Anthropic is going to be a trillion dollar private company maybe this year! This is a staggering outcome and will further divide the gap between the wealthy and everyone else.
So whether populist outrage is expressed through fears of job losses, higher energy prices or concerns over water usage, IMHO, wealth inequality is the cause.
- Boosting existing small businesses and enabling the creation of new small businesses by making previously expensive resources like market research, accounting/legal advice, etc. available for $20/month.
If Anthropic can allow millions of people from all around the world to access these benefits, why shouldn't it be worth a trillion dollars?
Wealth in the modern world is not a zero sum game. Wealth is created, not allocated. The fact that Anthropic is worth a trillion does not prevent you from making money.
The economy is down, and the fad is blame AI so that is what everyone is doing. The last downturn there was a different fad that people blamed it on - but the real root cause was always the economy and not the fad.
It’s understandable that people blame AI for economic issues when so may CEOs are publicly stating that “increased efficiencies due to AI” is the reason for laying off staff.
They blamed the latest fad for layoffs in the last one as well.
Every company and project I know of has a long list of things they want to do that they believe would be good for customers - but they cannot afford the people needed, and the risk is too high to borrow. That is if AI was really increasing efficiency in a good economy they would be keeping everyone and getting more work done with them.
Of course in reality we cannot know if AI has really increased efficiency - we only have short term measures at best which we know from experience are often wrong. (most often because there are many ways you can make a shortcut today that will kill your long term)
What are you referring to here? The latest fad before AI was crypto, or maybe "the metaverse" and I don't think anyone credited those for layoffs. Before that, the latest large round of layoffs was during what, 2008? And the blame for that was correctly laid on the very real economic collapse occurring.
There have been other downturns that didn't hit tech. Not all fads coincide with a downturn and so not all get blamed on for the layoffs. Sometimes the economy is blamed correctly at well.
> Populism is effective because the proverbial rising tide is not lifting all boats
This is naive and shows lack of understanding of second order effects. Technology has been so far one of the only things to lift all boats. The last 100 years almost eliminated extreme poverty, hunger and improved material life for everyone. How? Technology - agricultural, industrial.
Of course AI is going to be a rising tide but there will be a blip where people can lose jobs.
Wealth inequality is just a proxy issue or jealousy. Industrial revolution also increased inequality (just in narrow terms).
> Of course AI is going to be a rising tide but there will be a blip where people can lose jobs.
Can you provide any evidence for the supposed rising tide? So far I've seen nothing that indicates that anyone besides the people directly invested in AI companies will benefit from it. Even the best case scenario right now - software developers becoming more productive - doesn't actually benefit anyone not invested in AI companies.
People losing their jobs (and in many cases, their livelihoods/lives as a result) are also not the only negative effects.
The irony I think is that whether the tide rises depends on the technology stabilizing to a point where people can be educated on how to competently use it in the workforce. Anyone expecting general returns on AI now is too caught up in the hype to contribute to this occurring—grifters and detractors alike.
Humans have some repeatable bugs in our wetware, and it can be predictably exploited in a way that is hard to correct. It isn't "some people" - it's all of us, and the moment we think we're immune is the moment that we are most easily affected.
Yes, even the smartest of us are idiots in some very predictable ways.
AI Datacenters are not how all or probably even most HNers get paid...
> Most data centers colo multiple types of compute, not just those dedicated to inference or model training. Additonally, strangling the economics of the infrastructure layer makes entire ecosystems move abroad.
Sure but we are talking about whether the enormous investment into AI infrastructure is prudent or not. Also I reckon most people on here made a living just fine before everything moved to remote data centers, and many if not most HNers workloads could run on individual machines... But that's another conversation.
I suspect soon young learners of the future may tilt their heads in curiosity when finding that Obama was a "Democrat" in the same way they did in the past when finding that Lincoln was a "Republican".
you're arguing against things that have no material effect. "oh won't you think about adversarial discourse about the most well funded industry in recent history"
I feel like economists have drawn so many lines in the sand for “it all goes downhill here” that we blow through and keep chugging that the public’s inured to debt news. We won’t solve this until it’s already unsolvable.
I think it's more relevant for quantum computing. The ions we choose for ion trap quantum computers are in part due to what wavelengths are excitable by modified telecom lasers, because they're the wavelengths that are easiest to produce and where the most research/stability/miniaturization has been focused. If the laser wavelength is configurable to this degree then it no longer becomes a constraint, and maybe you can choose single ions with different characteristics.
Love this and was my first introduction to the <ruby> HTML element (this feels like a great expanded use case). Also couldn't agree more re: your point on the resurrection of "old internet" blogs, it's a trend I'm very much enjoying.
Ruby is used extensively for Japanese (hiragana) and Chinese (bopomofo) -- you can see it on wiktionary, e.g. in the definition of manga [1]. The Rules for Simple Placement of Japanese Ruby spec [2] provides various examples of ruby formatting and layout.
I would've expected that uptake was only beginning in 2022 and still vastly increasing through 2023 (plus the compounding loophole that allowed telehealth companies like Ro to really expand the target audience). 2024 and 2025 data are likely to be better telltales of the impacts of GLP-1s.
Would maybe benefit from a "Checkmate!" or other finish screen, but cool project! Though I agree that it beating you may be more based on your skill level than its, given how it keeps pushing pawns.
Overuse of bulleted lists, unnecessary sensationalism, sentences like "The requests flew. There was no WAF, no IP blocking, no CAPTCHA." and so on. It reeks of someone pasting some notes into a chat prompt and asking it to spruce it up for publication.
Maybe just try having confidence in yourself. Trust your instincts. I'm not going to impugn my own abilities based on some purported flaw in an abstract amorphous blog called "humanity", whatever that is. A lot of individuals of distinction have many characteristics better than the average, why wouldn't I trust myself more than other people?
Pattern recognition is a many millions of years evolved ability best exemplified in the "human" species by the way, so I basically disagree with your whole premise anyways.
The Brown killer was basically caught by a homeless man getting a bad vehicle about the future shooter. So I agree, trusting your gut is definitely a thing.
People believe in witchcraft and lots of other things - including many horrible prejudices - just as confidently as you. There's a reason any scholarship, courts, medicine, and any other serious endeavors require objective evidence.
Imagine that - doctors, who have seen everything, have years of study, treat all those people, still require objective evidence. Anyone in IT looks for objective evidence - timing, stepping through code, etc.
Confidence doesn't correlate well with accuracy; in fact the more someone expresses your kind of confidence, the less I rely on them at all.
What if you wrongfully accuse someone? Does that matter? Are you responsible for the consequences of what you do?
You turn your brain off and outsource your thinking to other people, because you're incapable of perceiving reality for yourself, is what you're telling me.
Of course everyone is responsible for their accuracy and their errors, doesn't mean it's impossible to infer things based on observation experience and intuition. This is an evolved ability, but I do agree some people are better than others like most things.
You're conflating a lot of things. Many prejudices are accurate and prudent, which craft is stupid, but so what? I'm not going to deny my perception on something that's correct just because some other idiot believes in magic; non sequitur.
It's really a bizarre argument. You are making evidence-free claims, based on nothing - including the things you say about me. It discards all of critical thought, empiricism, reasoning, philosophy, etc. ....
(b.) they practically demonstrate the point: while, yes, AI uses em-dashes, the entire corpus of em-dashes is still largely human, too, so using that as a sole signal is going to have a pretty high false positive rate.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCc-ipWVShY&t=1h5m43s
reply