Comment by absynth | Hacker News Reader

Comment by absynth | Hacker News Reader

I have a different perspective. You'll probably hate it.

AI data centers should be operated according to two limiting factors.

1) No energy from grid. Can't use coal or fossil fuel energy sources. Must have plan to provide excess TO grid.

2) No use of fresh water from municipal or fresh groundwater for cooling. Can use waste water. Must transition to providing excess fresh water to common supply.

No loopholes. Massive penalties for use of loopholes or breaking rules, not limited to but including complete shutdown of data center.

Those two limits will spur innovation AND prevent AI being criticized for energy use. These rules would hard burn improvements in energy storage and renewables as well as other methods of energy production.

Give them five years to comply to some useful progress percentage. Plenty of time to come up with a transition plan and show sufficient progress to justify further extensions. Realistically it will take 20 years at least to fully realize this plan.

Don't bring up cost. If you do, let me remind everyone that the climate change issue is real enough to hurt now. There's the very real cost of not pursuing these rules. AI has had plenty of time to bootstrap off grid. Now it can begin to migrate to something else instead.

Those with experience with energy generation will realize this plan has ridiculously high reward for those who follow it. Have your cake and eat it too definitely applies.

Good rules. How about we apply them to alfalfa farms (that send their water to Saudi Arabia) or football stadiums (I don't like football)?

The point is, I don't see the logic in singling out data centers over anything else.

It’s an article about data centers so we’re talking about data centers. 100% agree we should be pushing all industries to use their resources not those of the commons. Data centers do happen to be easier to mostly close loop though than alfalfa farms. Football stadiums on the other hand 100% should be.

That would be great if there weren't the easy arguments that "if we don't build it bigger, China will", "it's for national security", etc. Far from forcing regulation on them, they're reaping windfalls of deregulation. To build a thing which is far from convincingly beneficial to national security or society.

> if we don't build it bigger, China will

ja, und?

We have a mineshaft gap.

And they have a minecraft gap.

The intent is good, but it will end up just pricing out everyone but Google, Amazon, and Microsoft (and the start-ups those companies bankroll).

> 1) No energy from grid. Can't use coal or fossil fuel energy sources. Must have plan to provide excess TO grid.

This is easy: the companies will simply build some nuclear power plants near to their data centers. Perhaps even nuclear power plants that are vibe-designed by their AIs. :-)

Faster and cheaper than nuclear power would be building a virtual power plant, adding big-ass banks of batteries charged during times of low demand or excess power capacity, and peak-shaving consumption when the rest of us need power.

This is an amendment I'd add to those rules to allow. There are other ways of storing energy but battery banks are the obvious one. Works well with shedding excess as well.

They are already doing that.

They are just firing up natural gas portable generators.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...

I don't hate it, but I suspect that incentives this would generate would not end up producing results that strictly align with the ones you envision and desire.

For one thing, you're essentially mandating data centers to be colocated with power plants and waste water treatment plants, instead of these things each being located independently according to the requirements of their different functions. If that really leads to "ridiculously high reward", why isn't it being done already?

OTOH, then AIs could functionally drink, pee and poop

The trickle-down economy dictates that data centers get first access to electricity and fresh water (and any other resource it needs). People get whatever is leftover and like it. This is america.

As always, what trickles-down isn't green.

I’m gonna buy me some DRAM wafers for now. No one else done that before. It’s innovative.

mm. Think big and start an ETF.

Sure, if we’re in the business of making arbitrary requests, how about every data center operator has to bring 1 Epstein accused to justice for every data center they’re allowed to build?

The hard part has never been the “what”, it’s always been the “how”.

There is no way that letting these clowns run nuclear power plants is a good idea. Also the percentage of land that is allowed to be used by datacenters should be limited. Let them set them up in deserts or something.

Antarctica is a great place for datacenters. They can power them with any of the 300 national security reactors and easily keep them secret from the taxpayers forever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com