This implies that Amazon is The Paperclip AI and is just building data centers for no purpose and isn't using them or
is using them for non-productive means like Bezos' gaming rig.
But they're not, they're building out data centers because the world demands more AWS capacity. Shouldering the emissions from this on Amazon, unless you believe they're being particularly inefficient about it, is shooting the messenger.
Its the same as when Uber launched. VCs suppress prices, to create demand ($5 Uber rides anywhere in the city) which generates more transactions, which generates more pollution. Instead of a alternative lower cost transportation (like BART or muni), SF residents chose the highest environmental impact and lowest cost option.
Amazon’s capex is not funded by venture capital. It is funded by people buying things from Amazon or services from AWS.
Uber hasn’t raised from VCs in years, and their business is far bigger than it was back when they were losing money.
The idea that SF residents choose to use Uber rather than BART because Uber is cheaper is simply wrong - Uber is much more expensive than BART, and with some notable exceptions for shared rides, that was true during the VC funded growth period as well.
It doesn't matter the source of the capital. VCs, public companies, bank loans, public or private investors. it doesn't matter.
The cost of these services is artificially suppressed to drive adoption, at the cost of our environment.
> The idea that SF residents choose to use Uber rather than BART because Uber is cheaper is simply wrong
When I lived in SF. Uber and Lyft cost between free and $5 to go anywhere in the city. Yes, $5 is more than the $2.75. But for price of a cup of coffee more, Uber would pick you up and drop you off exactly where you needed. Taking muni or bart involved walking, waiting, more waiting, and then more walking.
> Taking muni or bart involved walking, waiting, more waiting, and then more walking
Exactly.
Uber makes a lot of money these days. The price is not suppressed. And yet... it is more popular than ever. Prices were artificially low for awhile in order to bootstrap the market, and that worked, and now that the market has been established, prices are at a level that is sustainable. Your whole premise is wrong.
Part of the reason why they demand more aws capacity is from being marketed aws capacity. Additionally the elephant of the room of AI also something being marketed towards these companies.
Really the only reason why we don't consider making light websites and tooling these days like in the past where hardware constraints mandated it, is that all we think it is unsexy. That is it. All this waste for a sexy css and an ai app. Funny how we make a big stink of only calling libraries we actually use in code then we reach for a chatbot trained on all the corpus of man to tell us how many oz in a cup.
>remember guys, cut your beef consumption, drive less and have fewer foreign holidays (preferably none)
>this will allow the hyperscalers to build more DCs [...]
This juxtaposition makes zero sense because the datacenters are getting built regardless of whether people are eating beef or not. By and large, there's no global cap on carbon, so everyone is free to emit whatever they want, and someone eating less beef isn't allowing amazon to train more AI models or vice versa.
Maybe OP doesn't literally think amazon had to convince some people to not eat beef to get the datacenter built, but it's pretty obvious that the underlying sentiment of "we're making sacrifices so amazon can build a datacenter" is sincere. But that doesn't make much sense either, because the two things (ie. guy eating beef, amazon build datacenter) is totally unrelated. Doing one isn't enabling or preventing the other.
It seems to me that it's normal that our overall demand for energy is growing. It's a failure of policy over a long period that has lead to these bullshit outcomes.
Consumer energy per capita in the u.s. has been flat for a long time and even declining. Increased demand for energy is in fact a reversal of prevailing trends over the past couple of decades.
Consider the average american life over the last 100 years and how power demands changed. We went from gas to induction stoves. Furnace to electric heating. From ice boxes to refrigerators. From high ceilings to AC units. From books to TVs and then to TVs in every room. Compute hardware wise most people are using probably 5% of their cpu to web browse.
Once we hit the 90s, what are even the sources for added consumption in American households? We hit all the big ticket power sucking items already, like refrigeration and AC.
I think when energy hits a certain price point and stays there for a long time it makes sense to try to squeeze more productivity out of the same quantity of energy, but then when energy comes down in cost it opens up possibilities that were cost prohibitive before. The short term trend was towards lower per capital use, but over the long term new cheaper forms of energy drive demand up.
Having no experience in the field, is there a reason they don't drill ground source heat pumps for data centers? If the biggest power draw is climate control, ground source has the lowest operational cost.
Now that Amazon is trying to convince folks they haven’t fallen behind on AI they’ve quietly stopped talking about how they’re slashing greenhouse gas emissions. Funny how that works.
remember guys, cut your beef consumption, drive less and have fewer foreign holidays (preferably none)
this will allow the hyperscalers to build more DCs to make you completely redundant, so that bezos can have a 3rd fleet of jets
also flush less and get a no-flow shower head, those chips need all the water they can get!
Most dont realize data centers mostly must use potable water, so they put additional stress on the public drinkable water system.
"Data Center Water Usage: A Comprehensive Guide" - https://dgtlinfra.com/data-center-water-usage/
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-data-centers-are-deepeni...
This implies that Amazon is The Paperclip AI and is just building data centers for no purpose and isn't using them or is using them for non-productive means like Bezos' gaming rig.
But they're not, they're building out data centers because the world demands more AWS capacity. Shouldering the emissions from this on Amazon, unless you believe they're being particularly inefficient about it, is shooting the messenger.
We are in the early phase of VC fueled pollution.
Its the same as when Uber launched. VCs suppress prices, to create demand ($5 Uber rides anywhere in the city) which generates more transactions, which generates more pollution. Instead of a alternative lower cost transportation (like BART or muni), SF residents chose the highest environmental impact and lowest cost option.
Amazon’s capex is not funded by venture capital. It is funded by people buying things from Amazon or services from AWS.
Uber hasn’t raised from VCs in years, and their business is far bigger than it was back when they were losing money.
The idea that SF residents choose to use Uber rather than BART because Uber is cheaper is simply wrong - Uber is much more expensive than BART, and with some notable exceptions for shared rides, that was true during the VC funded growth period as well.
It doesn't matter the source of the capital. VCs, public companies, bank loans, public or private investors. it doesn't matter.
The cost of these services is artificially suppressed to drive adoption, at the cost of our environment.
> The idea that SF residents choose to use Uber rather than BART because Uber is cheaper is simply wrong
When I lived in SF. Uber and Lyft cost between free and $5 to go anywhere in the city. Yes, $5 is more than the $2.75. But for price of a cup of coffee more, Uber would pick you up and drop you off exactly where you needed. Taking muni or bart involved walking, waiting, more waiting, and then more walking.
> Taking muni or bart involved walking, waiting, more waiting, and then more walking
Exactly.
Uber makes a lot of money these days. The price is not suppressed. And yet... it is more popular than ever. Prices were artificially low for awhile in order to bootstrap the market, and that worked, and now that the market has been established, prices are at a level that is sustainable. Your whole premise is wrong.
Part of the reason why they demand more aws capacity is from being marketed aws capacity. Additionally the elephant of the room of AI also something being marketed towards these companies.
Really the only reason why we don't consider making light websites and tooling these days like in the past where hardware constraints mandated it, is that all we think it is unsexy. That is it. All this waste for a sexy css and an ai app. Funny how we make a big stink of only calling libraries we actually use in code then we reach for a chatbot trained on all the corpus of man to tell us how many oz in a cup.
[flagged]
>remember guys, cut your beef consumption, drive less and have fewer foreign holidays (preferably none)
>this will allow the hyperscalers to build more DCs [...]
This juxtaposition makes zero sense because the datacenters are getting built regardless of whether people are eating beef or not. By and large, there's no global cap on carbon, so everyone is free to emit whatever they want, and someone eating less beef isn't allowing amazon to train more AI models or vice versa.
It’s sarcasm. Poe’s Law?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
Maybe OP doesn't literally think amazon had to convince some people to not eat beef to get the datacenter built, but it's pretty obvious that the underlying sentiment of "we're making sacrifices so amazon can build a datacenter" is sincere. But that doesn't make much sense either, because the two things (ie. guy eating beef, amazon build datacenter) is totally unrelated. Doing one isn't enabling or preventing the other.
I have no idea how many times it has been explained that the “self-sacrifice “ method isn’t going to make a difference.
People who don’t understand the scale of the problem came up with that.
It seems to me that it's normal that our overall demand for energy is growing. It's a failure of policy over a long period that has lead to these bullshit outcomes.
Consumer energy per capita in the u.s. has been flat for a long time and even declining. Increased demand for energy is in fact a reversal of prevailing trends over the past couple of decades.
Isn't part of that caused by moving production to China?
Consider the average american life over the last 100 years and how power demands changed. We went from gas to induction stoves. Furnace to electric heating. From ice boxes to refrigerators. From high ceilings to AC units. From books to TVs and then to TVs in every room. Compute hardware wise most people are using probably 5% of their cpu to web browse.
Once we hit the 90s, what are even the sources for added consumption in American households? We hit all the big ticket power sucking items already, like refrigeration and AC.
I think when energy hits a certain price point and stays there for a long time it makes sense to try to squeeze more productivity out of the same quantity of energy, but then when energy comes down in cost it opens up possibilities that were cost prohibitive before. The short term trend was towards lower per capital use, but over the long term new cheaper forms of energy drive demand up.
Higher energy consumption translates to higher standards of living and better outcomes for everyone.
Here is a video you must see urgently :-)
https://youtu.be/F-QA2rkpBSY
Having no experience in the field, is there a reason they don't drill ground source heat pumps for data centers? If the biggest power draw is climate control, ground source has the lowest operational cost.
Now that Amazon is trying to convince folks they haven’t fallen behind on AI they’ve quietly stopped talking about how they’re slashing greenhouse gas emissions. Funny how that works.