GPGeorge
George Hepworth
- Local time
- Today, 06:58
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2004
- Messages
- 3,336
Is AI Increasing Costs?
- Thread starter Cotswold
- Start date
Hadn't heard of it.
thanks
GPGeorge
George Hepworth
- Local time
- Today, 06:58
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2004
- Messages
- 3,336
It was big news when MS announced plans to create underwater data centers. The announcement of the termination of those plans was much less widely reported, of course.
I’m at work and wasn’t able to read the full article. I’ll read it later. I simply scrolled through it. I’m sure they had strong reasons for their decision. China is now facing a lot of criticism from environmental organizations. They believe the heat generated by the data centers is a disaster for the underwater world.
- Local time
- Today, 08:58
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 30,643
My concern with an underwater data center is that temperature increases will cause solubility increases. Adding heat to the water will affect the amount of CO2 dissolved in the vicinity of these centers and in any place "downstream" (with respect to oceanic currents). CO2 + H2O will become H2CO3, carbonic acid.
Carbonate is mildly alkaline but as a natural side-effect of that alkalinity, it has an affinity for metals, particularly on the left-hand side of the standard periodic table. The general rule is that forming a mild alkali and then letting it form a precipitate or a stable compound will leave behind an acidic solution. Both sodium and calcium - two common components in sea water - form VERY stable compounds.
As the warm mix of dissolved carbonic acid and sea water flows away from the data center, it will eventually interact with colder sea water, causing the sodium carbonate or calcium carbonate to precipitate out, leaving behind a slightly more acidic solution. The problem is that when you change acidity (we chemists call it "pH") you change viability of some species, because biological processes are pH-sensitive. As a longer term effect, I would expect diminished aquatic life, both plant and animal, due to increased acidity "denaturing" the sea water.
Carbonate is mildly alkaline but as a natural side-effect of that alkalinity, it has an affinity for metals, particularly on the left-hand side of the standard periodic table. The general rule is that forming a mild alkali and then letting it form a precipitate or a stable compound will leave behind an acidic solution. Both sodium and calcium - two common components in sea water - form VERY stable compounds.
As the warm mix of dissolved carbonic acid and sea water flows away from the data center, it will eventually interact with colder sea water, causing the sodium carbonate or calcium carbonate to precipitate out, leaving behind a slightly more acidic solution. The problem is that when you change acidity (we chemists call it "pH") you change viability of some species, because biological processes are pH-sensitive. As a longer term effect, I would expect diminished aquatic life, both plant and animal, due to increased acidity "denaturing" the sea water.
When a PhD chemist talks, I switch to listening mode and pretend I understand.
I’ll be sitting quietly upgrading my ignorance.
GPGeorge
George Hepworth
- Local time
- Today, 06:58
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2004
- Messages
- 3,336
It occurred to me just now that the vagueness of the title of this particular thread obscures an important point about human civilization and critical progress.
"Is AI Increasing Costs?"
The obvious answer is "Yes, of course it is."
ANY human endeavor increases some cost. However, that same human endeavor can also reduce other costs. And, much more importantly, it can create new benefits that didn't exist before.
Take, for example, an innovation far enough back in recent history to have at least some degree of perspective attached to it.
Some types of passenger airplanes cost thousands of times as much as a passenger car to build, operate and support.
If the question is only limited to that production cost without also considering the benefits and reduction in other costs, it would obviously be foolish to build airplanes. The truth is, though, that the benefits of passenger planes outweigh those costs by a significant margin.
At least it appears to me to be obvious.
I suppose an argument could be constructed that by abolishing passenger planes, along with buses, trains and automobiles, we'd save unimaginable sums of money. And people could still hitch up a team of spirited horses for a buggy ride to visit Gramma and Grampa 2 states away. Or we could load Amazon boxes in handcarts for delivery to our homes by robust young men and women who build muscle strength and endurance into the bargain.
Unfortunately, I suspect there are greenie luddites who would prefer the odor of manure to the odor of engine exhaust and the self-discipline of knitting their own sweaters over the convenience of getting a new grey hoodie overnight from the hottest new name in fashion.
I also suspect such luddites are in the minority.
If we turn the question of the cost of virtually any innovation we've seen over the centuries, and ask "Is this new thing going to increase the cost of <something>?" the answer will always be, "Yes, it will cost more."
The next question, though, must be, "What are the benefits to be gained from that investment?"
"Is AI Increasing Costs?"
The obvious answer is "Yes, of course it is."
ANY human endeavor increases some cost. However, that same human endeavor can also reduce other costs. And, much more importantly, it can create new benefits that didn't exist before.
Take, for example, an innovation far enough back in recent history to have at least some degree of perspective attached to it.
Some types of passenger airplanes cost thousands of times as much as a passenger car to build, operate and support.
If the question is only limited to that production cost without also considering the benefits and reduction in other costs, it would obviously be foolish to build airplanes. The truth is, though, that the benefits of passenger planes outweigh those costs by a significant margin.
At least it appears to me to be obvious.
I suppose an argument could be constructed that by abolishing passenger planes, along with buses, trains and automobiles, we'd save unimaginable sums of money. And people could still hitch up a team of spirited horses for a buggy ride to visit Gramma and Grampa 2 states away. Or we could load Amazon boxes in handcarts for delivery to our homes by robust young men and women who build muscle strength and endurance into the bargain.
Unfortunately, I suspect there are greenie luddites who would prefer the odor of manure to the odor of engine exhaust and the self-discipline of knitting their own sweaters over the convenience of getting a new grey hoodie overnight from the hottest new name in fashion.
I also suspect such luddites are in the minority.
If we turn the question of the cost of virtually any innovation we've seen over the centuries, and ask "Is this new thing going to increase the cost of <something>?" the answer will always be, "Yes, it will cost more."
The next question, though, must be, "What are the benefits to be gained from that investment?"
Isaac
Lifelong Learner
- Local time
- Today, 06:58
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2017
- Messages
- 11,462
Hmm, I don't think so. Either they are places where people very much want to live and or they are protected as a national preserve as desirable wilderness
Cotswold
Well-known member
- Local time
- Today, 14:58
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2020
- Messages
- 988
Same with finance, insurance and advice which most people don't realise. As soon as someone else is involved they will want paying. The more there are, then more will want to be paid.
