top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 136 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (7 children)
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    I live here and people are getting priority over AI?

    Iowa isn't like many states where there is water scarcity. This cooling water isn't even being consumed. It's used for cooling and returned to the waste water system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 22 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That would be considered consumed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Not really. At least not in the sense that it's a net loss of water downstream.

    It's not like irrigation or bottling, where water is entirely removed from the system and not returned.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It is removed from the system. It's not practically immediately recoverable. The capacity to supply that water has been spent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If you want to talk about water treatment capacity, then sure. Treatment capacity is used for cooling.

    That's not what I'm talking about though. I'm talking about the mass of water being consumed (i.e., removed) from the watershed. The water removed from the river for cooling is returned. There is no net loss of water.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    There is a net loss of potable water (or potable water capacity, if you prefer), which is often a capacity bottleneck before non-potable water due to the infrastructure required to generate it. However, according to a comment above, Microsoft is using evaporative coolers, which specifically work by losing water (through evaporation). It's not a 100% loss rate to the watershed, but it's not net zero either

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    At Meta we have a massive system for cutting out our net effect on water for the local area. I'm in NM and the DC here is almost actually adding to the water. I can't imagine Microsoft would behind as to not do this. It's an open design.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 47 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I feel like we’re missing the forest for the trees here, this is all in service of a feature in bing that was supposed to revolutionize search but actually caused a 0% increase in Bing’s market share from q1 to q3 https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/bings-search-market-share-fails-to-budge-despite-ai-push/

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I gotta wonder though, water used for server cooling is basically just run through metal fixtures and returned right? Couldn't it be possible to force some kind of maintenance and cleanliness standards onto the equipment and just have the water return to the supply? Is there any reason that water wouldn't be just as drinkable after?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 2 years ago

    They use evaporative cooling on days where it is over 85f

    Microsoft’s data centers currently use adiabatic cooling, which relies on outside air to cool down temperatures inside. It’s a system that uses less electricity than air conditioning and less water than cooling towers. But when temperatures rise above 85 degrees Fahrenheit, outside air isn’t very helpful. At that point, an evaporative cooling system kicks in, which uses water. It works like a “swamp cooler” — cooling the air by pushing it over or through water-soaked screens.

    https://local.microsoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Datacenter-water-consumption-fact-sheet.pdf

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    They probably treat the water to prevent mineral and bacterial build up. No matter how sanitary it is it will probably require some amount of treatment before it can be put back into public drinking supplies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    If it's just for cooling, wouldn't they just be able to pull water directly from a lake and then return the same water into the lake? Why is any consumption happening?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    In theory, yes. Of course, the same holds true for a lot of things which we currently use clean water for! The water needs of agriculture, toilets, carwashes, and many more could be addressed through so-called graywater (e.g.: pumped lakewater, rooftop rainwater) if we really sat down and wanted to make it happen.

    The reason that we don't do these things is rather mundane: it's cheaper and easier to tap into the shared drinking water infrastructure than it is to collect your own water and roll your own silos/filtration tech. That might change as the world changes -- something has to give eventually if we use more groundwater than we replenish, but much like clean drinking water, I don't think it's a problem we should ask individual entities to solve. Governments would generally be much more suited to efficiently collecting drainwater, scrubbing it, distributing it, and mandating usage in wasteful commercial applications.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago*

    A lot of problems we don’t solve boil down to “it’s boring and expensive” lol it’s sad when you think about it. Everyone says they want infrastructure investment because they think it sounds mature or whatever, but when the day comes, they shake their heads.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I wonder what the practical implementation would be here. I assume current water infrastructure is two sets of pipes, one for clean water and one for wastewater. Would the solution here be to add a third parallel set of pipes for greywater?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    It probably doesn't make sense to do infrastructure -wide duplication for a greywater system. That would be a lot of pipe and possible leaks in places where that resource isn't needed.

    Smaller loops make more sense for specific needs like this. It just needs to be legislated - over a certain size, you need to pump, filter if required for your application, and then dump in accordance with whatever rules we set. If local governments want, they can subsidize this through tax breaks - we already have robust systems for giving corporations money back, we just need to tie it to the types of performance we need to see, whether that be environmental improvements, job creation/retention, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Dirty water is bad for cooling equipment

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Well, building on that question, why do they need a constant supply of clean water? My desktop PC has a water cooler, and it just recirculates the same water.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Because that's expensive to build on this scale. They'd have to cool the water back down again.

    It's cheaper to just run cold tapwater in at a fast rate, and dump the hot water intothe sewer.

    Which is why we need laws that go after industries that use insane amounts of water, if we don't it causes shortages and everyone's rate to go up

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    It’s cheaper to just run cold tapwater in at a fast rate, and dump the hot water into the sewer.

    There should be a cost to corporations using municipal water supplies for purposes unrelated to direct consumption for drinking, cooking, washing, toilets. You shouldn't be able to use it for cooling only, and you shouldn't be able to bottle and resell it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    The water isn't being consumed. It's going through the same process all the water in the city is going through.

    Pulled from the river, cleaned, used for cooling at the data centers, and returned to the river via the waste water system.

    The only loss is the energy/resources to treat the water.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    if you think that's wild, animal agriculture uses 13 TRILLION litres or gallons of water a year. Compared with fracking, which uses 220 billiion.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    Rain World moment

  • source
  • [–] [B] 3 points 2 years ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    But one thing Microsoft-backed OpenAI needed for its technology was plenty of water, pulled from the watershed of the Raccoon and Des Moines rivers in central Iowa to cool a powerful supercomputer as it helped teach its AI systems how to mimic human writing.

    Few people in Iowa knew about its status as a birthplace of OpenAI’s most advanced large language model, GPT-4, before a top Microsoft executive said in a speech it “was literally made next to cornfields west of Des Moines.”

    In response to questions from The Associated Press, Microsoft said in a statement this week that it is investing in research to measure AI’s energy and carbon footprint “while working on ways to make large systems more efficient, in both training and application.”

    Microsoft first said it was developing one of the world’s most powerful supercomputers for OpenAI in 2020, declining to reveal its location to AP at the time but describing it as a “single system” with more than 285,000 cores of conventional semiconductors, and 10,000 graphics processors — a kind of chip that’s become crucial to AI workloads.

    It wasn’t until late May that Microsoft’s president, Brad Smith, disclosed that it had built its “advanced AI supercomputing data center” in Iowa, exclusively to enable OpenAI to train what has become its fourth-generation model, GPT-4.

    In some ways, West Des Moines is a relatively efficient place to train a powerful AI system, especially compared to Microsoft’s data centers in Arizona that consume far more water for the same computing demand.


    The original article contains 1,229 words, the summary contains 252 words. Saved 79%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    For a second, I thought that Keegan-Michael Key was gonna have to lecture someone

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Rain World time

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›