Discussion about this post

User's avatar
PHT's avatar

Sorry if it is addressed in the main article, but to use the "corn water usage vs AI water usage" as a hook is a bit disingenuous - the metric itself completely ignores the vast difference in usage, value created, etc... Maybe you should compare "water used" over "number of buyers" / "number of consumers" etc... Or even, if you really want to use cold numbers, give me the share of GDP that derives from "corn has grown" vs "AI data center have churned numbers" - and give me the water intensity of both. I'm ready to bet that corn will suddenly look better .

(I suspect this "trick" must have a name - it's not really "cherry picking", and the data is probably perfectly legit, but it's not apple vs orange per se...

But it's the similar tocomparing carbon emission from cars (used by billions) and private jets (used by a few thousands) . Although, here, you can clear the conversation by having a single "per Capita" intensity. For corn vs AI, the right denominator is much less obvious - and there is a "value" element to it (maybe we could find a number like "what would it cost the economy if the corn / ai disappeared tomorrow" ? So of a "counterfactual intensity ?" Probably studied to death, but I don't know the word to lookup...)

No posts

Ready for more?