Your argument is something along the lines of:

1. People dislike X, so a small amount of water being used for X is bad.

2. People like Y, so a large amount of water being used for Y is good.

You can't draw any conclusions from this, apart that people dislike some things and like other things.

The argument establishes no relation to water usage. That makes the argument against AI "an ethical one because of water usage" just a trope.

The comments in this thread are hilarioisly nonsensical

All the way up to the top comment that refers to a "water usage argument"

Whats the argument

Its an article reporting Amazon's data center water usage. It does not express an opinion on that number. It discusses so-called "tech" companies' reluctance to release water usage numbers

2.5B gallons. Its a number not an argument

Facts are not arguments

Why the secrecy around these numbers

Why the defensiveness in HN replies

The pistachio business is profitable

Not sure about the "AI" business

Where "dumb" money flows like water

But it seems that there is a limit

And so now it must target peoples' retirement savings

pistachios is not the same thing as "food" it is just a small percentage of it. "Food" is important, pistachios not so much.

Its not a bad comparison because pistachios are a cash crop, not a staple crop. That is to say, pistachios aren't grown to keep people fed, they are grown for economic profit

I think the criticism here is that they're pumping that water in from the Colorado river based on a pricing schema that makes it artificially cheap t grow water intensive crops in a very arid region. If the pricing were modernized and rationalized those pistachios would be grown somewhere that has more rain fall. Moreover a lot of that water is transported with the pistachios out of the watershed so it creates 2nd order problems.

You could also argue that Amazon data centers are crucial commercial infrastructure that used for a lot of logistics necessary to move food around.

There are a whole lot of foods that are incredibly wasteful if you truly care about water consumption.

Saying "if it's edible then it doesn't matter how much water it uses, it's justified" isn't a good position to take.

You don't need pistachios. General compute is a few orders of magnitude more important to humanity's livelihood than pistachios.

And some foods are a lot more water efficient than others to produce.

Almonds use more water for the same calories of nutrition compared to a grain, somewhere from 4-8x more depending on the source.

Plus California was/is in a drought for years, that's why people bring up the almonds example.

You find growing an incredibly water heavy crop in a place that doesn’t have the water supply to do so a weird comparison? And it’s not even a food that’s needed, so you can’t stand on that either.

Hyperbolic people help me ignore their fake concerns.