AI's Water Footprint: A Misconception Exposed

Journalist Karen Hao acknowledged a substantial error in her book Empire of AI last month, stating that a proposed Google data center in a town near Santiago, Chile, could require more than one thousand times the amount of water consumed by the entire population. However, thanks to a unit misunderstanding, the actual figure appears to have been off by a magnitude of 1,000. Hao thanked Andy Masley, the head of an effective altruism organization in Washington, DC, for bringing the correction to her attention. In a recent Substack post, Masley questioned some of the numbers and rhetoric common in popular media about water use and AI. His main post, titled "The AI Water Issue Is Fake," has been linked in recent months by other writers with large followings, including Matt Yglesias and Noah Smith. According to Masley, the widespread concern over AI's water consumption is largely unfounded and based on misunderstandings of the data. "The narrative around AI and water is being driven by a combination of misunderstandings and misrepresentations," Masley said in an interview. "We need to have a more nuanced conversation about the actual water usage of AI systems." Masley's concerns are not new, but rather a culmination of several months of research and analysis. He has been working to correct what he sees as a pervasive misconception that AI systems are excessively water-intensive. "The reality is that most AI systems require very little water to operate," Masley explained. "The vast majority of the water used in data centers is for cooling purposes, not for the AI systems themselves." Masley's work has been gaining traction, with several high-profile writers and thinkers sharing his Substack post and engaging with his ideas. The controversy surrounding AI and water use is not just an academic debate; it has significant implications for the development and deployment of AI systems. As AI becomes increasingly integrated into various aspects of society, understanding its environmental impact is crucial. "The conversation around AI and water is a perfect example of how misinformation can spread quickly and have real-world consequences," said Hao in her Twitter thread. "I'm committed to getting it right and ensuring that our conversation about AI is informed by accurate data and research." In light of the correction, Hao is working with her publisher to fix the errors in her book. The incident highlights the importance of fact-checking and verifying data, particularly in the context of complex and rapidly evolving fields like AI. As the debate around AI and water use continues, experts like Masley are pushing for a more nuanced and evidence-based conversation. "We need to be honest about the actual water usage of AI systems and avoid perpetuating misconceptions that can have real-world consequences," Masley said. The incident also underscores the need for greater transparency and accountability in the media, particularly when it comes to reporting on complex technical topics. As the use of AI continues to grow and evolve, it is essential that journalists and experts prioritize accuracy and rigor in their reporting. By doing so, they can help ensure that the public is informed and engaged in a conversation that is grounded in fact and evidence.