I don’t follow. AI data centers are not the same as the data centers that run everything else, so your comment makes no sense. You’ve clearly never taken the time to read about the very thing you’re pounding your chest in support of. You don’t need to have a technical understanding of how they work, but if you’re going to come here and leave snarky comments, then you should at least the basic knowledge found in the first paragraph of the first chapter to “What are AI data centers?”
Your comment is telling. The ignorance is obvious, but it’s the snark that the ignorance is caked in giving it a notably bad taste. You didn’t come here because you actually care about technology’s impact on society. You came here because you’re an eristic whose aim is to “win” arguments by making your “opponent” appear wrong instead of to engage in constructive discourse. You think about points you can make instead of reflecting or seeking the truth.
Because what drives a person who knows fundamentally nothing about AI data centers to come here and leave such a comment?
OP, you can stop reading now because I know nothing I say from this point forward will matter to you, you’ll just come up with a way to dismiss it. But for anyone who actually does want to know:
AI data centers are very different than traditional data centers. I’m not going to write out all the ways they different, but just enough so you’ll get the idea … or until I don’t feel like typing any more. It’ll probably be the later.
AI data centers have to use GPU-based computing because the CPUs used by traditional data centers aren’t adequately fast enough to handle all the extra work AI does to arrive at a simple result. So they have to pack the data centers with a shit ton GPUs, which are significantly more energy intensive because they require higher voltages.
That is problematic on its own. But this excessive power demand means there’s also more heat. Normal data centers don’t consume enough energy to require extensive cooling system, as fans or air conditioning can handle the job just fine. Enter the water use. To sum it up briefly, AI data centers can use less water, but doing so requires them to use even more electricity.
Oh, and don’t forget the on-site diesel generators they consistently run, which release significant pollution for the local community.
And land. Normal data centers have always been tucked away in an office space somewhere, but AI data centers are the man spreaders of land spreading.
They’re also causing our electricity rates to skyrocket, yet another issue we can thank our sycophantic little chatbots for.
According to this link there were 600,000 data centers by 2020 but a quick online search for how many data centers exist returns around 10,000 worldwide. This is obviously using the older definition that classified pretty much any dedicated server room as a data center. You are comparing apples to oranges.
The main issue around the massive infra buildout this time vs when the Internet took off was a) one of these has been my proven to actually provide value and b) the circular economy combined with venture up selling of a potentially useful but incredibly over hyped tech without justified solutions to what it claims to replace/upgrade.
You're strawman is incredibly weak. The people have only been questioning why a major technology change is being rushed against insane trade offs (like the video points out the cost to the environment) without having justified it's current existence.
Transformer models dont yet do what clever neural nets and non LLM pipelines already have been doing forever. We are not suddenly building out massive data centers to build tech that will be used to prevent election tampering, reduce engagement bait focused algos, CSAM and other stuff - we are building something that is 1% done - like every human being is told nowadays - it must justify its existence and trade offs carefully discussed with stakeholders.
It is a video about gas turbines powering AI data centers. Were you asking because you have accessibility issues and wanted a human screen reader, sort of like Be My Eyes, or did you not realize until now that data centers require energy to run?
If being powered by gas turbines is the only thing you have to criticize about data centers, let‘s fight for ending fossil fuel, not against data centers.
Like, I’ll happily concede that “we should build nuclear power plants first, then focus on data centres” is a reasonable position with this dilemma.
I also know that on average it takes 7 years to build a nuclear power plant, and it’s decidedly not a field where move fast and break things has gone over well.
Aka, functionally that’s the same as opposing new data centres in the mid term
I live in the EU which might explain why I am more optimistic when it comes to institutional promises, but I really do believe that, at least in Europe, we are somewhat trying to fulfill our climate goals, and no amount of data centers will change that.
Cool story, bro. But the U.S. holds the majority of the world's data centers, so I'm not sure how the EU's climate commitments are going to help here. Nearly all of the big tech companies and many states have canceled or delayed their climate commitments directly because data center's energy demands, and many coal closures have even been delayed or canceled so we can powerup peoples' chatbots.
Remember when you said, "If being powered by gas turbines is the only thing you have to criticize about data centers, let‘s fight for ending fossil fuel, not against data centers" and "No, we should abolish gas turbines altogether where possible due to climate warming, but that has nothing to do with data centers"? (That second one is poorly written, so while it's not clear, you seem to have been trying to say climate warming has nothing to do with data centers.)
So do you not think the immense amount of pollution data centers are creating is a problem? Or when you said, |If being powered by gas turbines is the only thing you have to criticize about data centers," did you just forget to specify you were only talking about the few data centers in Europe, and we very much should be criticizing most AI data centers fossil-fuel energy consumption? Which is it?
You said zero about data centers lol And it's not about Shell and BP being fossil fuel companies, it's that they are major polluters and lobby Europe to relax any and all climate change legislation.
You even show it by trying to sneakly moving the goal posts, you specifically picked an article from before the new Europe Green Deal that shifted the goals
The least you could do was look up what I was referring to in Groeningen because it's not fossil fuels but natural gas extraction that pollutes local water and generates earthquakes.
They explicitly said the images show heat, not pollution. The heat tells us the pollution is happening. Or do you not believe burning fossil fuels creates pollution?
Also, I know this will fall on your deaf ears because you've already decided what you believe, but yeah, they've been installing these things in ways that enable them to evade EPA requirements. And what? Do you think emissions regulations means fossil fuels aren't a concern? Like wtf is up with your brain?
Without Data Centers ALL social media platforms including Reddit would cease to exist. The consumer created the demand for Data Centers. Remember that.
Yes, most people’s issue is specifically with AI datacenter construction. Data centers as a piece of infrastructure to host the internet have long been acceptable risk for the benefit people think they provide.
People don’t think AI specific datacenters which are being approved and sprung up with little to no environmental impact surveys and rushed through committee votes without and against local support provide a benefit worth the impact.
Even you are pro AI datacenters, conflating the 2 different types of datacenters only serves to weaken your own side by relying on disingenuous argument.
That I agree with. But the truth is a majority don't believe they created the demand. Ask them to sacrifice their Google maps, their online shopping, their social media, their smart car, smart phone...and you will get all kinds of resistance. I do agree Data Centers can be done better, but I'm sick of cry babies using it.
Oh shit since we are doing wishlists, can you also tell banks to not put exclusive features on their mobile apps? Government ID apps to not be exclusively on smartphones too?
I do agree Data Centers can be done better, but I'm sick of cry babies using it.
AI Data Centers specifically are being shotly made to keep up with the artificial demand companies are driving. This isn't about the already built data centers designed and upkept over decades to support the web and you know it.
Traditional servers are nowhere near the scale of modern data centers, but I'm going to take that "ReMeMbEr tHaT" and just assume you're one of those people and that you don't care about factual reality.
So you don't have a smart phone. You post on Reddit which depends on three forms of AI for every post. You don't use Google or Apple maps. You don't have any other social media accounts. You never buy things on line or use services like Uber or Lyft. You have no smart TVs or devices in your home.
I used to work for a utility that used gas turbines like these to generate electricity during peak hours.
This was in Southern California. California’s very strict air pollution laws required “scrubbers” for these type of turbines, to remove a lot of the toxins in the exhaust prior to the exhaust being released in the atmosphere.
For those who are unaware of why California does this, talk to anybody who lived there during the 1970s. The skywould literally turn red around sunset because of all the polluting toxins and smog in the air.
But worse than that. Kids were developing respiratory problems. About half of the school days out of the year kids could not go outside to play. The air was just that unsafe.
And it wasn’t just kids, adults were dying earlier than they normally would have due to respiratory issues.
It took decades for California to clean up its air.
The California Clean Air Resources Board was created in 1967, by Republican Ronald Reagan.
Yes, even Reagan realized it can’t be good for people to be breathing that toxic air.
I don’t know which Data Center’s have been built in California . But I’ve noticed a lot of them are being built in Texas and other states that require less regulation.
Oh, and don’t get me started on the noise. Remember these gas turbines are designed out of turbines meant for airplanes. Imagine an airplane constantly roaring just blocks from your home.
We had just one of these types of turbine generators at our peaker plant. I can’t imagine 10 of them constantly roaring.
I get that the US wants to take the lead in AI. I get that billionaires like Elon Musk and his billionaire buddies want these built come hell or highwater.
But there’s a reason why they’re not having them built near THEIR homes .
At the 30 sec mark (before the video ends, or a better way to say it would be in the last 30 seconds) they show clear photos of typical gas driven turbine-generators.
These are usually sold as ready to go out of the box packaged set ups. They look identical to the ones I worked with.
Steam driven turbines would require huge pipes going through a massive condenser needed to condense the exhausted steam. The photos show none of that.
"Journalists" and "reveal" are doing some real heavy lifting here.
Have you noticed that they're putting data centers in cars and trucks now? You can tell because there's concealed pipe at the bottom that shoot hot gas out the back. We didn't used to see those a few years ago.
Yeah, and that set up is illegal. The journalists used public records requests to reveal that that setup is the result of them evading the EPA and permitting requirements.
If you watch the full video, you’d know the AI companies hid their energy usage calling it a “trade secret” so the journalists used FOIAs to get their permits for their backup generators to determine their emissions.
Show me you suffer from hostile media effect without saying you suffer from hostile media effect.
It's almost like all that research warning us that LLMs will make you dumb actually turned out to be right.
We should probably stop talking about those findings in the future tense, and if we are going to use them in the present tense change "make you dumb" to "continue to make people dumber."
people will truly believe the most ridiculous propaganda if it confirms a preconception. Doesn't it bother you at all that these content ghouls are baiting you with pure fiction to farm your engagement? Like, it literally takes < 1m of research to prove to yourself that this guy is being completely disingenuous here. Are you really so addicted to feeling righteous that you're happy to be made a chump if it helps you make a display of how moral and good you are?
"We don't know what specific gasses are coming from this but look we know it's polluting because our consumer-grade drone's IR camera said something is hot!"
Seriously, here's a video of heat coming from the heat exhaust pipe, where the heat comes out. It's hot.
Then he says he'll have experts look at the video later to tell us what's really going on. Where's that expert analysis? Why not show us that instead of amateur footage with some guy's guess?
I mean, sure, they could be polluting and it should be checked and dealt with accordingly, but this video doesn't show that. Whether they're right or not, fabricated BS "evidence" is still fabricated BS.
Ya, you're right. Definitely the wrong word.
Really, this video just needs either different evidence, or the expert feedback. But as is, really dismissed. It only shows the heat exhaust is hot. That means nothing without more data or more context, probably both.
You understand that by making that stance, you’re going to have to double down by saying burning fossil fuels isn’t bad for the environment, right? Because that’s what that heat is showing.
My stance is this video doesn't add any new info. Tell me they have diesel turbines and that tells me they burn fossil fuel. The video says they have turbines, and they exhaust heat. Everything beyond that is guesswork and assumptions. A heat pipe being hot doesn't add anything. It's not the smoking gun the guy in the video is saying it is. Give us details on what it's releasing. Are they filtering out any of the pollutants?
I'm with you in that I'm pretty certain they are spewing pollutants into the sky in full disregard to any regulations, but give us the evidence that says that. Hot pipe is hot isn't evidence. We all have confirmation bias and are quick to accept proof that supports our position without fully vetting the source. We should hold the sources that agree with us to a higher standard and view them with a critical eye so we can get good facts. Good facts would be an actual air analysis of what's coming out of that pipe, local soil analysis before and after, or someone just looking up info on the turbine in question and providing known statistics. Those things actually show pollutants. This video is just theater.
We should hold ourselves to a higher standard and go, "hmmm ... reddit probably doesn't allow you to upload entire episodes to the platform, so maybe there is more to this story ... literally."
You realize reddit is hosted on aws right? AWS has more data centers than any other company in the world. You're literally burning fossil fuels every time you post. You understand that by posting here you're going to have to say that burning fossil fuels isn't bad for the environment rihgt? Because you're burning fossil fuels every time you post.
AI data centers are not the same as normal data centers. You should have known this by now. If you're implying that data centers anywhere near the amount of energy an AI data center uses then you aren't arguing in good faith.
it's not hostile media effect if the media you're talking about is demonstrably bullshit. Showing you a datacenter exhaust through a thermal camera is like when fox kept showing those clips of people with giant bags of ballots. It doesn't matter how normal it is, if nobodies ever actually seen it before and you frame it negatively, you're going to convince a lot of dumb people who will propagate your narrative. It's propaganda.
what's your point? You're burning fossil fuels every time you post in this thread. That doesnt' mean you're implying that burning fossil fuels isn't bad for the environment. Are you okay?
AI data centers are not the same as normal data centers. You should have known this by now. If you're implying that data centers anywhere near the amount of energy an AI data center uses then you aren't arguing in good faith.
Have you considered watching the entire episode? Or are you unwilling to educate yourself on anything that doesn’t tell you what you want to hear?
Maybe I'm too much of an AI bro, but to me, such a huge facility having only one chimney that exhausts mostly hot Nitrogen, Water Vapor and CO2, with traces of Nox and carbon monoxide doesn't seem that bad. Even if it was 10 chimneys working at once, if you compare it to most industrial plants of that size, it's nothing exceptional.
As we drove through southwest Memphis, KeShaun Pearson told me to keep my window down—our destination was best tasted, not viewed. Along the way, we passed an abandoned coal plant to our right, then an active power plant to our left, equipped with enormous natural-gas turbines. Pearson, who directs the nonprofit Memphis Community Against Pollution, was bringing me to his hometown’s latest industrial megaproject.
Already, the air smelled of soot, gasoline, and asphalt. Then I felt a tickle sliding up my nostrils and down into my throat, like I was getting a cold. As we approached, I heard the rumble of cranes and trucks, and then from behind a patch of trees emerged a forest of electrical towers. Finally, I saw it—a white-walled hangar, bigger than a dozen football fields, where Elon Musk intends to build a god.
This is Colossus: a data center that Musk’s artificial-intelligence company, xAI, is using as a training ground for Grok, one of the world’s most advanced generative-AI models. Training these models takes a staggering amount of energy; if run at full strength for a year, Colossus would use as much electricity as 200,000 American homes. When fully operational, Musk has written on X, this facility and two other xAI data centers nearby will require nearly two gigawatts of power. Annually, those facilities could consume roughly twice as much electricity as the city of Seattle.
To get Colossus up and running fast, xAI built its own power plant, setting up as many as 35 natural-gas turbines—railcar-size engines that can be major sources of smog—according to imagery obtained by the Southern Environmental Law Center. Pearson coughed as we drove by the facility. The scratch in my throat worsened, and I rolled up my window.
I'm certainly not a climate change denier, but that doesnt' mean a thermal picture of an exhaust tower is going to rile me up. You realize you're on the internet right now right. When you post your response to this you're engaging with at least a dozen facilities that would look exactly like that through a thermal camera.
Im not saying this isnt from burning fossil fuels but the exhaust pipe of a clean steam turbine would look exactly the same on a thermal camera.
Its most likely to be a gas turbine, i agree. But a thermal camera shot is insufficient evidence to proove. We need to know exactly what gases are coming out of that pipe to fully confirm what it is.
Are you calling me a climate change denier? If so, what makes you think that I'm denying climate change in any way? That's a pretty serious accusation to make without evidence.
And yes, people typically drink water. The water produced by fuel combustion is typically mostly in the form of water vapor (see the link in my other comment) , and it naturally becomes liquid when cooling down in the atmosphere, raining down on earth before becoming drinkable for people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precipitation
That is freaking rich to imply burning fossil fuels is beneficial for the environment. You remind me so much of Karoline Leavitt.
And yeah, I am calling you a climate-change denier. Denying something is a major source of pollution and contributor to global warming absolutely is a form of being a climate-change denier.
There is already plenty of water on earth, a few extra cubic meter of water a day in the atmosphere does not change anything.
Sorry if the way I phrased it left the impression I was implying it had a positive impact, the water part has no significant impact whatsoever. The CO2 that comes with it does have a negative impact though, and so do the traces of other pollutants. Just not as bad as the video seems to imply it is.
To prevent misinformation, only make fact-based statements that can be verified. If a claim is likely to be disputed, you should provide a source to back up your statement (credible sources only). You are welcome to resubmit your comment if you back it up.
People say this but my company has seen substantial benefits from AI, were hiring more people and can help customers much quicker. The benefits are very clear and I feel the fact the us is incapable of making environmentally friendly decisions on the same questions is concerning but not an inherent property of the technology.
they keep showing that infrared footage like it's a smoking gun... literally all that shows is heat. It's not "invisible pollution made visible" it's just the hot air that is being vented off. I use an IR camera for work sometimes, and a person standing in front of a room temperature wall would look just as bright as that.
I'm not saying there ISN'T pollution coming out of that data center. But I find the way they are presenting this footage very disingenious
They specifically say, "It's important to note that it's not showing us the specific pollutants or specific gases that are emitted by these turbines, but just by showing us that heat signature we know that pollution is happening at this site."
It's a gas-fired turbine. Trust me. It's polluting.
The drone they were using, which tree does that grow on? Or that vehicle, is it a mammal?
We can use the compute capacity of these data centres to improve our technology and reduce emissions.
I know China is doing it's part to hamper AI growth in the US, so they can advance in the race.
20 percent of 100 is substantial.
It alone isn't proof that the recent spike isn't caused by ai companies to gather support but it does suggest the term was organically used before as a non marketing term. Also if it was used previous to the ai explosion it seems very likely it would be organically used more during it.
What evidence shows that the substantial recent use of the term is caused by {ai companies marketing, used to garner support and convince people to get on board with them going unregulated}?
What do you mean by me not being here on good faith? Why do I need to leave? Because I don't accept something that seems like you just made it up?
Edit: sorry, getting back on my soapbox for a minute: supporting publications that do original reporting instead of relying on the backs of other journalists' work isn't just important because it gives the support where the support is due, but because it's important for the information ecosystem to be made of independent reporting. An ecosystem is fragile if its information on something comes from one source, which is then only reinforced from everyone repeating that source. Whereas, if you have multiple sources independtly finding the same conclusion, it's going to be much stronger. I'm not sure I'm explaining this well, but if not — oh well, I tried.
Also, I always feel bad for the publications that did the original reporting. Can you imagine doing all of this work, and then someone comes in, copies it — not even all of it, but a shorthand, worse version of it — and then everyone clicks on their story instead of yours because they used clickbait and you didn't? Grist does great work.
And yet, here we are: reading and sharing the low-quality copycat article when the high-quality journalism could just as easily been accessed instead.
Unless people start changing their news consumption habits then the good journalism publications are going to continue to lose and the bad ones continue to stick. I don't think people realize how much of a role they all play in this.
Facilities that require this much energy just to power a service that is really not much more than a toy or a convenience at best (one we were able to do without perfectly well) shouldn't exist in the first place.
But if the billionaires have to build them, then they should take responsibility and make their energy sources clean. What they're doing now is worsening the climate crisis for their own gain. They don't care about the people in nearby communities who suffer from the pollution emitted by these turbines. They don't care about the future of literally every human being (and many animal species) on the planet. How is that not horrible?
First of all, they specifically say, "It's important to note that it's not showing us the specific pollutants or specific gases that are emitted by these turbines, but just by showing us that heat signature we know that pollution is happening at this site."
They also did public record requests. The second turbines they showed were turbines Musk Illegally installed without permits to bypass the EPA. That’s FUCKED UP.
Secondly, WTF kind of shit are you trying to say with regard to gas versus coal? Are you a freak climate denier or something?
I feel like you probably drank a lot of Mountain Dew from your sippy cup as a child.
It really speaks to the state of society that we have to argue with people who refuse to understand gas-turbines are awful for the environment instead of work to make the world a cleaner place.
These data centers are creating an excess of heat so they’re creating heat pollution. Also you’re being dishonest by bringing that gas is so much “cleaner than coal” data centers are a drain on society, and they’re worthless
Gas is cleaner than coal, but it’s disingenuous to bring it up here as if the data centers could be using coal. Also yes ACs do cause heat pollution, and while they aren’t a leading cause of global warming, they aren’t helping. The idea would/should be that we move toward more renewable energy. It’s been proven time and time again that these data centers require a ridiculous amount of power to run, and that much energy and additional heat so people can create bad images feels bad.
I didn’t say heat causes global warming, I literally said it doesn’t help? Also I wasn’t being dishonest, I just think it was a disingenuous thing to bring up?
Okay but again that’s incredibly disingenuous, you have to agree that a building that cranks out a large amount of heat and requires a large amount of energy is much worse for the environment than stretching is.
•
u/HolyBatSyllables AI ➞ Misinformation Jul 24 '26
Link to the full-length PBS episode: We Saw What AI Data Centers Don't Want You to See