[1vuio0pswjnm7]

The pistachio meme

How that data point is interpreted may depend on whether the reader or someone they know likes pistachios or not

It might also depend on how the person views farmers versus how they view Silicon Valley companies

And so on

It's not intrinsically clear how a reader is going to interpret that data point without knowing something about the reader

Will they opine that water use for some purpose is "worth it" or "not worth it"

What do they think of pistachios

What do they think of "AI"

People might be OK with water use for pistachios but not for "AI"

The _amount_ of water use may not be the differentiator. The differentiator might be the _purpose_ of the water use

Food versus computers

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

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

[jason_oster]

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.