If the US Has to Build Data Centers, Here's Where They Should Go A new analysis tries to calculate the coming environmental footprint of AI in the US and finds that the ideal sites for data centers aren't where they're being built. A data center for cryptocurrency mining, cloud services, and AI computing in Stutsman County, North Dakota.Video: halbergman/Getty Images Tech companies have invested so much money in building data centers in recent months, it's actively driving the US economy--and the AI race is showing no signs of slowing down. Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg told President Donald Trump last week that the company would spend $600 billion on US infrastructure--including data centers--by 2028, while OpenAI has committed already to spending $1.4 trillion. An extensive new analysis looks at the environmental footprint of data centers in the US to get a handle on what, exactly, the country might be facing as this buildout continues over the next few years--and where the US should be building data centers to avoid the most harmful environmental impacts. The study, published in the journal Nature Communications on Monday, uses a variety of data, including demand for AI chips and information on state electricity and water scarcity, to project the potential environmental impacts of future data centers through the end of the decade. The study models a number of different possible scenarios on how data centers could affect the US and the planet--and cautions that tech companies' net zero promises aren't likely to hold up against the energy and water needs of the massive facilities they're building.

In this episode of Uncanny Valley, we discuss the economics and environmental impacts of energy-hungry data centers and whether these facilities are sustainable in the age of AI. The Stargate AI data center in Abilene, Texas.Photo-Illustration: WIRED Staff; Getty Images Tech giants have been investing hundreds of billions of dollars into AI data centers just this year alone. But as the deals pile up, so have the concerns around their viability and sustainability. Michael Calore and senior correspondent Lauren Goode sit down with senior writer Molly Taft to discuss how these energy hungry facilities actually work, the different industry interests at stake, and whether it'll all come crumbling down. The AI Industry's Scaling Obsession Is Headed for a Cliff by Will Knight OpenAI's Blockbuster AMD Deal Is a Bet on Near-Limitless Demand for AI by Will Knight How Much Energy Does AI Use? The People Who Know Aren't Saying by Molly Taft Write to us at uncannyvalley@wired.com. You can always listen to this week's podcast through the audio player on this page, but if you want to subscribe for free to get every episode, here's how: If you're on an iPhone or iPad, open the app called Podcasts, or just tap this link. Note: This is an automated transcript, which may contain errors. It's so nice to be back in studio with you again, because our schedules were not aligning for the past few weeks. But the stars and the moon have aligned now, and here we are once again. Lauren Goode: Here we are. And I'm sure all of our listeners have just been sitting here wondering, "When are Lauren and Mike getting back together? When is the band getting back together?"

Data curation is a field with origins in librarianship and archives, whose scholarship and thinking on data issues go back centuries, if not millennia.

As generative AI systems become widely adopted, they enable unprecedented creation levels of synthetic data across text, images, audio, and video modalities. While research has addressed the energy consumption of model training and inference, a critical sustainability challenge remains understudied: digital waste. This term refers to stored data that consumes resources without serving a specific (and/or immediate) purpose. This paper presents this terminology in the AI context and introduces digital waste as an ethical imperative within (generative) AI development, positioning environmental sustainability as core for responsible innovation. Drawing from established digital resource management approaches, we examine how other disciplines manage digital waste and identify transferable approaches for the AI community. We propose specific recommendations encompassing re-search directions, technical interventions, and cultural shifts to mitigate the environmental consequences of in-definite data storage. By expanding AI ethics beyond immediate concerns like bias and privacy to include inter-generational environmental justice, this work contributes to a more comprehensive ethical framework that considers the complete lifecycle impact of generative AI systems.

Nonetheless, the technological advancement of AI relies on computationally intensive calculations and thus has led to a surge in resource usage and energy consumption. Even putting aside the environmental toll of server manufacturing and supply chains, AI systems can create a huge environmental cost to communities and regions where they are deployed, including air/thermal pollution due to fossil fuel-based electricity generation and further stressed water resources due to AI's staggering water footprint [12, 25]. To make AI more environmentally friendly and ensure that its overall impacts on climate change are positive, recent studies have pursued multi-faceted approaches, including efficient training and inference [5], energy-efficient GPU and accelerator designs [19], carbon forecasting[14], carbon-aware task scheduling[1, 21], green cloud infrastructures[2], sustainable AI policies [10, 18], and more. Additionally, data center operators have also increasingly adopted carbon-free energy(such as solar and wind power) and climate-conscious cooling systems, lowering carbon footprint and direct water consumption [8]. Although these initiatives are encouraging, unfortunately, a worrisome outcome-- environmental inequity -- has emerged [3]. That is, minimizing the total environmental cost of a globally deployed AI system across multiple regions does not necessarily mean that each region is treated equitably. In fact, the environmental cost of AI is often disproportionately higher in certain disadvantaged regions than in others. Even worse, AI's environmental inequity can be amplified by existing environmental equity agnostic resource allocation, load balancing, and scheduling algorithms and compounded by enduring socioeconomic disparities between regions.

The sharply increasing sizes of artificial intelligence (AI) models come with significant energy consumption and environmental footprints, which can disproportionately impact certain (often marginalized) regions and hence create environmental inequity concerns. Moreover, concerns with social inequity have also emerged, as AI computing resources may not be equitably distributed across the globe and users from certain disadvantaged regions with severe resource constraints can consistently experience inferior model performance. Importantly, the inequity concerns that encompass both social and environmental dimensions still remain unexplored and have increasingly hindered responsible AI. In this paper, we leverage the spatial flexibility of AI inference workloads and propose equitable geographical load balancing (GLB) to fairly balance AI's regional social and environmental costs. Concretely, to penalize the disproportionately high social and environmental costs for equity, we introduce $L_q$ norms as novel regularization terms into the optimization objective for GLB decisions. Our empirical results based on real-world AI inference traces demonstrate that while the existing GLB algorithms result in disproportionately large social and environmental costs in certain regions, our proposed equitable GLB can fairly balance AI's negative social and environmental costs across all the regions.

This story was originally published by Yale E360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Two months after its release in November 2022, OpenAI's ChatGPT had 100 million active users, and suddenly tech corporations were racing to offer the public more "generative AI" Pundits compared the new technology's impact to the Internet, or electrification, or the Industrial Revolution--or the discovery of fire. Time will sort hype from reality, but one consequence of the explosion of artificial intelligence is clear: this technology's environmental footprint is large and growing. AI use is directly responsible for carbon emissions from non-renewable electricity and for the consumption of millions of gallons of fresh water, and it indirectly boosts impacts from building and maintaining the power-hungry equipment on which AI runs. As tech companies seek to embed high-intensity AI into everything from resume-writing to kidney transplant medicine and from choosing dog food to climate modeling, they cite many ways AI could help reduce humanity's environmental footprint.

Many recent improvements in NLP stem from the development and use of large pre-trained language models (PLMs) with billions of parameters. Large model sizes makes computational cost one of the main limiting factors for training and evaluating such models; and has raised severe concerns about the sustainability, reproducibility, and inclusiveness for researching PLMs. These concerns are often based on personal experiences and observations. However, there had not been any large-scale surveys that investigate them. In this work, we provide a first attempt to quantify these concerns regarding three topics, namely, environmental impact, equity, and impact on peer reviewing. By conducting a survey with 312 participants from the NLP community, we capture existing (dis)parities between different and within groups with respect to seniority, academia, and industry; and their impact on the peer reviewing process. For each topic, we provide an analysis and devise recommendations to mitigate found disparities, some of which already successfully implemented. Finally, we discuss additional concerns raised by many participants in free-text responses.

Technology never exists in a vacuum, and the rise of cryptocurrency in the last two or three years shows that. While plenty of people were making extraordinary amounts of money from investing in bitcoin and its competitors, there was consternation about the impact those get-rich-quick speculators had on the environment. Mining cryptocurrency was environmentally taxing. The core principle behind it was that you had to expend effort to get rich. To mint a bitcoin or another cryptocurrency, you had to first "mine" it.