Water consumption of AI is a non-issue. Why even spend research and policymaking resources on this?
Best regards, European person where lakes dry out atm.
While man-made climate change is undoubtedly real, the yearly "our lakes dry up"-media cycle is not proof of it at all. Check if the return to normal in November will make the news.
I am aware and never claimed that. Though, the global push towards mega factories, data centers and whatnot does not help the situation. Lots of places here in Germany already struggle with having enough water, so the mindset to "lets just build a Tesla mega factory here" is something I never understood. Can't be that different for data centers. We should use our resources smartly, not for profit margins.
Your comment very much implies a strong link between the two however. That you then switch from data centres to factories is also a shift that is not related to the discussion at hand.
Personally, everything I've read on the issue indicates that the water usage, for a product that I hear mentioned daily by people in the street, is insignificant.
I have many qualms with AI, mainly about the politics of AI labs and its effects on inequality, and I am active in this field. But I see its environmental costs as a weak argument and don't use it, despite of how receptive people that I try to convince are to it: it uses much less energy, harms many fewer animals, and serves more of a purpose than animal agriculture, so I prefer to move my environmental actions towards that.
> Two-thirds of post-2022 data centers are located in water-stressed regions.
I don't think it's wrong to ask questions about that _IF_ you also ask questions about all the other usages of water, like the Californian almond stuff.
Just saying "You shouldn't use AI because it uses too much water" is kind of ridiculous.
You're using up all the water by gobbling macaroons and marzipan.