The catch is that a data center drained half a lake processing it, loses money in the process but the „vibe modder“ gets to make revenue on Youtube with ads for the clips I guess. I bet many of these creativity vultures have a patreon too. If you‘re anything like me you chuckle at a Mario 64 in Elden Ring clip and keep moving on, though. Why would I want to play that when both games separately are much more fun?
Using the worst widely known misuse of water as a straw man argument is a little pathetic, no? The water usage from AI data centers is still pretty high, especially when you consider many are doing it without a permit, which is the actual issue and reason a lake could just vanish. Besides, global warming isn‘t getting easier with all those gas turbines either, contributing to more droughts.
That would only be a straw man if that is an oversimplification of the issue (not sure how “drained half a lake” is not a distortion/oversimplification, but I’m guessing you read that with blinders on). My following comment in this thread clearly shows that is not the case, so I’ll take what you say as ad hominem.
If you really want to get into fallacies though, sure he’s the others you committed:
The phrase “the actual issue and reason a lake could just vanish” implies there is only one real issue and that I’m ignoring it. This frames the debate as a binary: either you care about vanishing lakes or you’re making pathetic arguments. That’s a false dilemma.
Phrases like “a lake could just vanish” and “global warming isn’t getting easier” are designed to evoke alarm and urgency without connecting them logically to the original point. That’s appeal to emotion.
Your comment pivots from the original topic (water usage comparisons) to a different issue: “permitting… which is the actual issue”. That’s a red herring.
Motte and Bailey also as the whole “Well, they still use a lot and many are unpermitted” (that’s a motte: a hard-to-dispute claim). Those shifts are used be people without a point to appear victorious without defending the original position.
You‘re looking way too deep into a comment that incapsulates multiple facets of the issue just fine to diverge from your problematic „but it‘s not as bad as this worst misuse of water you‘ve ever heard of“ comparison. Your claim it‘s hard to verify is laughable as is your first semester social studies level of analyzing an argument. I guess one way of winning a debate is to just bore everyone to death so bravo.
There’s been lots of reports done on the subject. In the end, low estimates put it between 68-75 billion gallons annually, high estimates closer to 230 billion gallons. That seems like a lot, right? The USDA reports total agricultural usage at 26.4 trillion gallons. That means 0.88% of the water used for ag.
This is where the the argument usually breaks down because someone will argue that:
Water is a scarce resource
US-Ag provides something of substance
If it is a scarce resource, than why is only 0.88% of that resource important enough to save? That then transitions to providing something useful, but usefulness doesn’t magically remove the scarcity that they just claimed as the main issue. Is destroying the resource for almonds really a valid reason? It’s just counterpointing their own argument.
AI datacenter water consumption does have a footprint (especially when factoring in hydropower used not just cooling), but to say it’s “draining lakes” or destroying the environment while ignoring everything else is just bad faith.
AI datacenter water consumption does have a footprint (especially when factoring in hydropower used not just cooling), but to say it’s “draining lakes” or destroying the environment while ignoring everything else is just bad faith.
Brushing it aside just because other matured industry does worst is not only bad faith, it’s also whataboutism. These AI datacenter only exists for about a few years, and they’re building more. It’s not only water usage, it’s known to produce noise, and also consume a lot of power that caused a price hike. The issue even goes beyond this three, ram shortage, people getting fired because of the hype, the ever bloating AI investment, just to name a few.
Just because wild fire is burning hectares of land every year doesn’t make slash and burn an ok practice.
I’m highlighting the fact that none of these other points are ever mentioned. Only the debunked one is mentioned. That’s by definition not whataboutism as I don’t have to address the validity of an already debunked claim.
FYI for you, if someone raises a point, that point gets debunked, and they keep raising it anyway as if it’s still valid, then the other person pointing out “that specific claim was already debunked” is not committing whataboutism. That would be:
Rejecting a straw man: refusing to re-litigate a claim that has already been shown to be false.
Holding the line on established facts: insisting the conversation move past a disproven talking point.
My main concern downloading these decomps / mods / etc is malicious software.
AI local or paying for tokens isn’t free. It still takes time to even get AI to “do it for me”. These are just flooding my feeds. What’s the catch?
The catch is that a data center drained half a lake processing it, loses money in the process but the „vibe modder“ gets to make revenue on Youtube with ads for the clips I guess. I bet many of these creativity vultures have a patreon too. If you‘re anything like me you chuckle at a Mario 64 in Elden Ring clip and keep moving on, though. Why would I want to play that when both games separately are much more fun?
The water usage thing was debunked and really needs to stop being used. It just invalidates the argument when used.
Fun fact: The California almond industry uses more water than AI datacenters.
Using the worst widely known misuse of water as a straw man argument is a little pathetic, no? The water usage from AI data centers is still pretty high, especially when you consider many are doing it without a permit, which is the actual issue and reason a lake could just vanish. Besides, global warming isn‘t getting easier with all those gas turbines either, contributing to more droughts.
That would only be a straw man if that is an oversimplification of the issue (not sure how “drained half a lake” is not a distortion/oversimplification, but I’m guessing you read that with blinders on). My following comment in this thread clearly shows that is not the case, so I’ll take what you say as ad hominem.
If you really want to get into fallacies though, sure he’s the others you committed:
The phrase “the actual issue and reason a lake could just vanish” implies there is only one real issue and that I’m ignoring it. This frames the debate as a binary: either you care about vanishing lakes or you’re making pathetic arguments. That’s a false dilemma.
Phrases like “a lake could just vanish” and “global warming isn’t getting easier” are designed to evoke alarm and urgency without connecting them logically to the original point. That’s appeal to emotion.
Your comment pivots from the original topic (water usage comparisons) to a different issue: “permitting… which is the actual issue”. That’s a red herring.
Motte and Bailey also as the whole “Well, they still use a lot and many are unpermitted” (that’s a motte: a hard-to-dispute claim). Those shifts are used be people without a point to appear victorious without defending the original position.
You‘re looking way too deep into a comment that incapsulates multiple facets of the issue just fine to diverge from your problematic „but it‘s not as bad as this worst misuse of water you‘ve ever heard of“ comparison. Your claim it‘s hard to verify is laughable as is your first semester social studies level of analyzing an argument. I guess one way of winning a debate is to just bore everyone to death so bravo.
Me: States facts based on USDA published data. Internet Nobody:
Ad hominem means you have no actual point that can stand against what I said. So, yes, I did win lol.
Not debunked, misreported
https://youtube.com/watch?v=c0PSKqqFbeg
There’s been lots of reports done on the subject. In the end, low estimates put it between 68-75 billion gallons annually, high estimates closer to 230 billion gallons. That seems like a lot, right? The USDA reports total agricultural usage at 26.4 trillion gallons. That means 0.88% of the water used for ag.
This is where the the argument usually breaks down because someone will argue that:
If it is a scarce resource, than why is only 0.88% of that resource important enough to save? That then transitions to providing something useful, but usefulness doesn’t magically remove the scarcity that they just claimed as the main issue. Is destroying the resource for almonds really a valid reason? It’s just counterpointing their own argument.
AI datacenter water consumption does have a footprint (especially when factoring in hydropower used not just cooling), but to say it’s “draining lakes” or destroying the environment while ignoring everything else is just bad faith.
Trying to make nuanced arguments is pointless with these people.
Anything less than vitriolic hatred is zealously attacked.
Brushing it aside just because other matured industry does worst is not only bad faith, it’s also whataboutism. These AI datacenter only exists for about a few years, and they’re building more. It’s not only water usage, it’s known to produce noise, and also consume a lot of power that caused a price hike. The issue even goes beyond this three, ram shortage, people getting fired because of the hype, the ever bloating AI investment, just to name a few.
Just because wild fire is burning hectares of land every year doesn’t make slash and burn an ok practice.
Or you know, we can say no to both.
I’m highlighting the fact that none of these other points are ever mentioned. Only the debunked one is mentioned. That’s by definition not whataboutism as I don’t have to address the validity of an already debunked claim.
FYI for you, if someone raises a point, that point gets debunked, and they keep raising it anyway as if it’s still valid, then the other person pointing out “that specific claim was already debunked” is not committing whataboutism. That would be:
Rejecting a straw man: refusing to re-litigate a claim that has already been shown to be false.
Holding the line on established facts: insisting the conversation move past a disproven talking point.