For 11 weeks, I tracked all of my AI use. One hundred sessions. I counted the tokens processed and applied publicly available numbers on per-token energy and water intensity from Epoch AI and operator-reported data from Microsoft and Google. Anyone can run this math.
In those 11 weeks, I built an iOS app from scratch and wrote policy briefs on extreme heat for nonprofits I work with. I produced documentary pitch decks and drafted a 15,000-word climate fiction piece about the Colorado River collapse. I used AI every single day, often for hours at a time.
Total lifecycle water footprint of all that work: about five gallons. That accounts for everything: the water used to cool the data centers, the water consumed at power plants to generate the electricity, and the water embedded in manufacturing the hardware.
When an Outside editor reached out to ask me to write this story, I was on a trip to Marble Canyon, Arizona, to train raft guide companies on what is happening with the river. I drove my diesel Sprinter van from Tucson to the site, which tallied 383 miles at 20 miles per gallon of gasoline. When I ran the numbers later, the lifecycle water footprint of my fuel was around 110 gallons. One drive to the work I do on the Colorado River used more than 20 times the water of everything I did with AI in 11 weeks. That comparison stopped me cold—and I study this for a living.
Now include the compute used to train the AI models you were using.
Also, I’m not sure “Ai is actually not as bad as the worst polluter in most people’s daily life” isn’t a great point. We are adding a new “appliance” to every household that is almost as energy intensive as a car?!?
That compute has to be divided by the total use hours of the model for all of its users. It’s a one off. A one off we do frequently because it’s an emerging technology, but it’s the x factor like with solar panels which will get cheaper over time as we will learn to not fully retrain models from scratch and start using composite ones.
Even cars are not such a big culprit. Agriculture and meat consumption are much higher.
This sounds like a deflection piece by open ai or something. The massive amounts of water used for ai aren’t from you googling shit. Its from ai companies training new models which takes way more than 5 gallons
It’s not such a clear split
AI inference is projected to consume more power than training by 2027
https://adeshmehta.substack.com/p/simplergy17-ais-thirst-for-power
projected to
So it isn’t and hasn’t been.
the point is that inference power use is not negligible at all, and it’s actually pretty close to training usage
… once usage rates explode to many times the current level
This feels like an argument that global warming is fake because we had a bunch of snow recently lol
The issue is that they are grabbing copious amounts of potable water from an already strained system. Funnily enough for my metaphor, that means it is compounding issues from climate change 🎉
“I’m not the bad guy! That guy over there is the bad guy!”
Said one bad guy pointing to another bad guy.
I read the title as “Cats are” and was like what the fuck
Holy shit same. I was like what kind of nonsense
both can be true
fuck AI
Por que no los dos?
To everyone hating - the point is that if you think water use from AI is bad, you should also be opposed to car use even more. Yall all got your dick measuring tapes out for this one as soon as they pointed out that something is worse than your favorite thing to hate on, huh?
I… this is literally the Fuck Cars community. What makes you think folks here aren’t “opposed to car use” enough?
Right. Presumably this was posted in agreement and support of the car-hating sentiment
Porque no los dos?
Thats the point
Pavlovian






