←back to thread

Major reversal in ocean circulation detected in the Southern Ocean

(www.icm.csic.es)
480 points riffraff | 1 comments | 04 Jul 25 04:52 UTC | HN request time: 0.942s | source
Show context
dang ◴[04 Jul 25 09:51 UTC] No.44463006[source]▶
[stub for offtopicness]
replies(15): >>44461279 #>>44461280 #>>44461309 #>>44461334 #>>44461385 #>>44461408 #>>44461448 #>>44461634 #>>44461664 #>>44461731 #>>44461790 #>>44462060 #>>44462362 #>>44462565 #>>44462687 #
saubeidl ◴[04 Jul 25 08:17 UTC] No.44462362[source]▶
In related news:

* Data centers powering artificial intelligence could use more electricity than entire cities [0]

* Google’s emissions up 51% as AI electricity demand derails efforts to go green [1]

* AI is poised to drive 160% increase in data center power demand [2]

It is a doomsday cult in the most literal sense.

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/23/data-centers-powering-ai-cou...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/27/google-em...

[2] https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/AI-poised-to-...

replies(11): >>44462429 #>>44462451 #>>44462452 #>>44462511 #>>44462554 #>>44462564 #>>44462814 #>>44462819 #>>44462877 #>>44462879 #>>44463041 #
dottjt ◴[04 Jul 25 08:29 UTC] No.44462429[source]▶
Not that I necessarily believe it, but isn't the rationale that technology allows us to scale without the need for additional humans? A bit in the same way that oil provides us many multiples of manpower?

So for example, if AI can replace the need for additional humans, then overall we're using net less energy?

replies(5): >>44462449 #>>44462454 #>>44462458 #>>44462476 #>>44462509 #
1. rebuilder ◴[04 Jul 25 08:35 UTC] No.44462458[source]▶
That would be a compelling argument if procreation was somehow primarily driven by a need for people.

As it is, we already have quite a lot of people and they’re not going anywhere, however many terawatt-hours we pump into AI.