Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Beyond wasteful the linked article can't even remotely be taken seriously.

> An AI cloud can generate revenue of $10-12 billion dollars per gigawatt, annually.

What? I let ChatGPT swag an answer on the revenue forecast and it cited $2-6B rev per GW year.

And then we get this gem...

> Wärtsilä, historically a ship engine manufacturer, realized the same engines that power cruise ships can power large AI clusters. It has already signed 800MW of US datacenter contracts.

So now we're going to be spewing ~486 g CO₂e per kWh using something that wasn't designed to run 24/7/365 to handle these workloads? These datacenters choosing to use these forms of power should have to secure a local vote showcasing, and being held to, annual measurements of NOx, CO, VOC and PM.

This article just showcases all the horrible bandaids being applied to procure energy in any way possible with little regard to health or environmental impact.



> What? I let ChatGPT swag an answer on the revenue forecast and it cited $2-6B rev per GW year.

This article is coming from one of the premier groups doing financial and technical analysis on the semiconductor industry and AI companies.

I trust their numbers a hundred times more than a ChatGPT guess.


Are you sure they don't have a vested interest? At least ChatGPT gave me sources.

It doesn't matter who they are if there's nothing backing it up.

The entire article is predicated on the fact that this is profitable long term.

Again: > An AI cloud can generate revenue of $10-12 billion dollars per gigawatt, annually.

Yet this simple fact isn't justified at all nor is it stated what "AI cloud" actually is or how they got to those numbers.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: