this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2026
412 points (97.2% liked)

Technology

86208 readers
2912 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheRedSpade@lemmy.world 68 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It makes sense with the context in the article, but "triples that of 650 million" is a very strange way to say "almost 2 billion".

[–] inbn@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Also funny that the other big number, 1.3 billion, is literally double 650 million. Maybe they split it it up because the numbers are tied to specific geographic areas with specific water/energy quantities but yeah it does not read very well

[–] jumponboard@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Written by ai?

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 57 points 1 month ago (12 children)

Once again: stop letting them use potable fucking drinking water it makes no sense

[–] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 month ago

I thought the majority of their water consumption is indirect via electricity consumption. If we could stop burning freaking coal that would be a start.

But yes, also stop using potable water for evaporative cooling!!

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 46 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Why mix units? Match 1.3billion for water. Why not say match 1.95 billion for power, instead of 3x650 million.

[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

Maybe they did the text with an AI.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fizzle@quokk.au 41 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Fuck this.

I remember in the 00s imagining what AI might be like.

I did not imagine soulless chat bot that was going to steal all the water.

[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago (11 children)

Because it's not real ai. It's just marketing.

[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

There's no guarantee, that team AI wouldn't be even worse.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 24 points 1 month ago (3 children)

triples that of 650 million

Wouldn't saying nearly as much as 2 billion people be the same and more efficient?

[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 month ago

Not if they're referencing a specific 650 million. North America has about that many people but punches well above its weight in power usage per capita.

[–] MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago

Perhaps it was written by AI

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

A note: “AI” doesn’t have to be that way.

It’s not using evaporative cooling out of necessity. It’s just the absolute cheapest, fastest way to cool en masse. Just like slamming a gas generator down on a site, or housing servers in tents:

They could take an extra second to build something efficient, and they did not.

Or, they could just not use waste so many GPUs on “intelligence scaling” that does not scale. Like most non-US firms do, just fine. But FOMO.


In other words, non technical decision makers, who don’t understand how transformers models even work, dictated this would happen. It’s not even a sane business planning decision, and they’re too rich to face any consequences now.

[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 11 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Makes no sense. (I know that there are countries without proper regulation, but) around here they would simply not be allowed to use that much water.

They would need to build them in a way to not use that much water for cooling, and this would be controlled by officials during planning,build and operation.

[–] Flower@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Tech bros in general always seem to do it anyway and deal with complaints afterwards, preferably after lobbying or sueing to remove regulations.

[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago

do it anyway

Not possible here, cowboy.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Many states with proper regulation would never allow this for literally any other industry without extensive permitting, and rightfully forcing the company to build its own treatment plants to support the increased load on existing systems

But somehow, nope. Fuck all that I guess.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah the billionaires just bribe the state government. Easy.

[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Therefore there are (or: need to be) laws and courts who can check even the actions of governments.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The courts and the law makers are owned by the same billionaires.

[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago

.... in countries which I call "unregulated"

load more comments (1 replies)

Good use of our resources

[–] Lyrac@programming.dev 8 points 1 month ago

Why is the article using "match" and "triple" in the same sentence for things that are pretty much in the same order of magnitude?

[–] Dryad@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What if we as a society decided to just not?

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

That would be truly a modern miracle then

[–] OldChicoAle@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

And it will be our fault that there aren't enough resources for the data centers just like it's our fault the climate is changing. If only we didn't use AC when it was needed, we could have saved the world /s

The Epstein class will never be at fault.

[–] BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

This completely ignores that fresh water production is regional. I'm tired of that shit. It's something else to use x amount of water in Amazon jungle and something else to use same amount in the desert. The notion that you could just provide third world countries with water from US is moronic.

[–] CanIFishHere@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why don't they make this the first problem AI should solve?

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago

They sort of claim AI is going to do that. Someone said AI could solve climate change. Which is hilarious because it's actually accelerating it currently.

[–] austin@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago

You'll tell people that and then they keep using AI...

[–] garbage_world@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Drinking needs or net water usage?

[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Don’t forget to shower less and only use paper straws

[–] voytrekk@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It's stupid how much they are pouring into hardware that might be vastly obsolete. By the time AI becomes truly intelligent, there may be specialized chips that are efficient at running models that blow GPUs out of the water.

Look at how it happened to bitcoin mining. Nobody serious is using a GPU to mine when ASIC is available.

However, I don't see all this hardware hitting the second hand market once a better solution is found. I'm sure they will keep trying to make compute hard to get for the average person so they can rent out their servers for a crazy price.

Its worse. The expected life span of the compute server hardware is 2 years. The processors cannot be re-purposed and the memory needs to be re-packaged in a non-novel way. They will most likely send it too ewaste processing to get the precious and rare earth metals back.

[–] mabeledo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

By the time AI becomes truly intelligent, there may be specialized chips that are efficient at running models that blow GPUs out of the water.

Truly intelligent? What?

[–] voytrekk@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I wouldn't call what we have now as true artificial intelligence. That doesn't mean that we will not achieve it in the future.

[–] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Personally, I don’t think we can characterize LLMs as “intelligent”, since they are statistical machines.

But given that most experts don’t even agree on what intelligence is, I don’t think we’ll ever reach a point where AI could be called “intelligent” anyway.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›