[samhclark]

Agreed.

I think my takeaway from the water usage deep dive was about the scale of the numbers and a better intuition about water usage, but also that you really need to consider each data center uniquely. He'll say in broad strokes that data centers are fine, and then mention the few exceptions (in the infrasound article, that's the xAI DC). That's fine for the moment when he wrote the article, but if I'm evaluating a proposed data center in my local area, I don't know what bucket it falls in. Is it the exception or the norm? Still, because I read that deep dive, I feel better equipped to make that evaluation.

[logicprog]

I don't think saying "as a general rule, data centers don't use remotely enough water to be any kind of significant threat, when you see through the accounting games, media hype, and look at things in a proper context" is made wrong or misleading by admitting that there are a few exceptions.

> That's fine for the moment when he wrote the article, but if I'm evaluating a proposed data center in my local area, I don't know what bucket it falls in. Is it the exception or the norm?

It does help you set your priors though, and not fall for the "all AI guzzles water, and DCs are dehydrating every town they're in and are always bad, without doing the research" rhetoric that's driving DC bans around the country right now.

[samhclark]

I think we agree? I can't tell if you meant this as additional support for what I wrote or as a rebuttal.

Regardless, yeah, I don't think that's wrong or misleading. I only meant to say that because there are exceptions now, there might also be more exceptions in the future. Which, to me, means it's important to evaluate each new local DC individually.

And your point about setting my priors is exactly what I'm saying, too.

[logicprog]

Ah ok, we probably do agree then.