[rdedev]

Putting things into perspective is not minimising the problem. We literally have to do this to prioritise where our efforts can be useful.

Your argument makes sense if ai datacenters were using something close to like alfafa farming but the difference between them is soo massive it does not make sense.

Reducing pollution is a much better problem to fight for

[yubblegum]

I am guessing (not asserting) that there is a sort of cap on water used for agriculture. It's possible we've already reached it. (?)

So, on the matter of scale: there likely isn't a cap on water use of these datacenters. Both the heat emission and usage levels for these systems will likely go up unless there is a fundamental technical breakthrough.

On the matter of utility: As a sibling of GP mentioned, the utility of food is clear.

On the matter of polution: I am not remotely read on waste water and contamination due to industrial agriculture. Is this also something where the judgmental scale is tipped in favor of food production vs cooling systems?

[luckydata]

what is the utility of alfaalfa? Because as it stands it's essentially just a way to export enormous amounts of water from a place where there's little (California) to a place where there's none (the Arabian peninsula).

This is bullshit to be charitable.

[yubblegum]

Your alfalfa is a red herring. Agriculture encompasses more than a specific crop that we can always legislate against production for export. The data centers will not go away and the utility of the "AI" they are to enable is as of today dubious.

> This is bullshit to be charitable.

What is bullshit is sockpuppets shilling for the very few who have bet the 'farm' on this and want return on their investment, the wellbeing of society be damned.