Again, stuff that was Literally not in your original post, trying to quantify it further now does not change what you have written. All the fallacies are still there, and trying to argue with me does not undo them.
No, this is not required.
1 Like
@nephele Without a threshold, you’re saying any energy consumption is equally problematic. If that’s the case, the problem isn’t AI, it’s industrial civilization. Good luck fighting that from a Haiku forum. 
2 Likes
As nephele points out, no part of his argument required it. His key factual point was that “big tech companies have given up their CO2 reduction targets”. He later provided links proving this to be the case. So his argument was not “data centers consume energy”.
(By the way, even if one is a “climate change skeptic” or has a “right-wing” view of property and rights, pretty much all these same arguments about resource consumption still work, just tweaked a bit. Even if global temperatures are/were unaffected by atmospheric CO2, there are all sorts of quite bad effects from higher levels of atmospheric CO2, such as lowered nutrient values in food. Or that many resources are in fact finite, or at least hard to replace, and we shouldn’t waste them. Etc.)
More “[thing] isn’t X, it’s Y” terminating sentences. Are you using LLMs to generate/edit these posts?
1 Like
PC enthusiasts would worry about RAM prices…
3 Likes
Fire of the Gods in code submissions.
School of Thought versus School of Thought.
One of the foundations was in the legality implied by the use from AI. Scholastically, is what is submitted original work or otherwise?
Another point. CO2 is only a factor. Acid rain, bacterial overgrowth, orbital changes, cosmic forces. Humans are limited irrational beings with delusional oversight.
Science = guess, luck, repeat (and some BS)
Rock. Heel of shoe, Hammer. Choose one. Fix problem.
@waddlesplash PulkoMandy’s point was that big tech companies have abandoned their CO2 reduction targets because of AI. True. But that reinforces exactly what I was saying: without a defined threshold, the argument applies to any technology massively adopted by big tech. Criticism without a unit of measure doesn’t indicate a solution, it indicates an emotional direction.
On the other side, concrete data center retrofitting projects already exist that go exactly in the right direction. In Italy, A2A and Qarnot inaugurated a data center in Brescia in 2025 that recovers residual heat to feed the city’s district heating network. In Milan, the Avalon 3 project, operational from 2026, will recover over 15 GWh of thermal energy per year to heat more than a thousand families. The sector is moving, and faster than the apocalyptic narrative suggests.
Sources: Data center in Italia per la transizione energetica | A2A — https://www.agendadigitale.eu/infrastrutture/data-center-in-italia-impatto-ambientale-e-soluzioni-green-per-crescere/
And while we’re at it: why do you see LLMs everywhere? 
1 Like
How does that reinforce what you were saying? It seems to me you’ve circled around to indirectly agree with PulkoMandy: there needs to be a defined threshold. PulkoMandy’s key point was that there is no defined threshold, and there ought to be one.
So you agree, then: “AI” companies are acting “emotionally”?
I notice that you did not actually say that my accusation is incorrect. Previous times I have asked this, you’ve similarly deflected without actually answering the question…
2 Likes
@cocobean Honestly I didn’t understand a word, but I appreciate the energy.
@waddlesplash On the threshold: PulkoMandy said AI data center consumption is excessive, but never defined what level would be acceptable. Asking for that threshold isn’t avoiding the issue, it’s the prerequisite for a practical discussion instead of an ideological one.
On “emotional” criticism: I said criticism without a unit of measure indicates an emotional direction. Not AI companies. You changed the subject.
On the rhetorical question: a rhetorical question is not a confession.
1 Like
We need a category for left, right, fake news and facts maybe?
No politics for sure°!
You did not ask for the threshold. And again, I put it to you, there doesn’t need to be one. You don’t need to define down the nJ the energy consumption that would be OK or not OK to see there is a massive problem. Recouperating some Heat from datacenters does not solve the problem at all, it only makes it a “bit” smaller. When heating is concerned doing it electrically like this is still not very efficient. You would get way more efficient heating by using electric heating in the homes directly. Claiming this is better is basically greenwashing.
It does not.
On the rhetorical question: a rhetorical question is not a confession.
It’s not a not-confession either. You may think you are snarky, but yet you are unable to say “No, I did not use an LLM to compose my post or parts of it.” I suspect you do not do this to not outright lie. Waddlesplash would only be seeing “LLMs everywhere” If they accused severall people baselessly, yet there is only doubt with your messages, and with a specific basis. I suppose it is possible you just happened to write some posts like an LLM would, but considering your other behaviour here, on your website, and the wierd and unfitting responses to some posts that seems unlikely.
I guess I’ll see if i get a response that looks like this again, to this message of mine that does not use bullet points, but instead quotes lines inline like almost everyone on this forum does:
Sub topic 1: In the space of responses this adresses the first point
It is not A, it is actually B. (Without adressing my post at all)
Sub topic 2: In the space of responses this adresses the first point
It is not A, it is actually B. (Without adressing my post at all)
1 Like
The general scientific concensus was to maintain temperature raise under 1.5° compared to pre-industrial levels.
I didn’t think I would need to explicitly say that. I hoped everyone was well aware of it, and maybe it’s not enough, but it seemed like a reachable target and relatively safe back then. Every tenth of degree above that brings us into completely unknown territory. A gamble I would rather not play, but my fellow earthlings are bringing me there against my will.
Now, we are shooting past this target at high speed, and I already hear talks about a global warming of 3, maybe 4°. The US is getting temperatures of 40+ degrees in late winter this year. Spain is slowly turning into a desert.
And CO2 emissions in the last two or three decades are way, way higher than in previous ones. Was life so bad in the 1990s? Could we go back roughly there in terms of comfort/lifestyle, but with modern tech that is more efficient and less power hungry being put to good use?
2 Likes
@nephele On greenwashing: before using this term it’s worth looking into the subject more carefully.
Direct electric heating has a COP of 1: one kilowatt of electricity produces one kilowatt of heat. A heat pump has a COP of 3-4: the same kilowatt produces 3-4 kilowatts of useful heat. District heating connected to a heat pump powered by residual datacenter heat multiplies this efficiency further, because it recovers energy that would otherwise be dispersed into the atmosphere.
This is not theory. Meta’s datacenter in Odense, Denmark has been heating over 11,700 homes through the city’s district heating network since 2019: Meta: surplus heat to district heating - Ramboll
Calling this greenwashing is not a technical critique. It’s a verdict issued without knowing the difference between an electric resistor and a heat pump.
On the “emotional” criticism point: you answered with a simple “no, it doesn’t” without any argument. If a criticism has no defined unit of measure, how do you distinguish it from an ideological position? That’s the question. I’d be curious to hear the answer.
1 Like
@PulkoMandy I genuinely share the concern about climate, and it’s not a superficial position: sustainability has been a philosophy of life for me for twenty years. I built my company around these principles, I’ve been driving electric for ten years, I helped create an energy community in my province, and through my choices and investments I generate more green energy than I consume in a year.
European legislation in this field is extremely thorough and I’m genuinely happy about it: the targets are clear, measurable and binding. The Energy Efficiency Directive already requires European datacenters to report their energy consumption, with reduction targets of 11.7% by 2030. The EU AI Act adds specific energy transparency requirements for AI models. This is not greenwashing, it’s concrete regulation: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiency-directive/energy-performance-data-centres_en
That said: banning LLMs from HaikuPorts is not what will keep us under the 1.5°C threshold. The emissions linked to AI are real and the problem of big tech companies abandoning climate targets is documented and serious. But the solution is regulating big companies, investing in efficient infrastructure, pushing toward datacenters powered by renewables. Not stopping a tool in a niche operating system’s repository.
Banning LLMs from HaikuPorts is a symbolic gesture that won’t save the planet but prevents creating software that is useful to me and perhaps to others in the community. One example is Sestriere, I won’t mention the webcam or Bluetooth because in 2026, who uses those things anyway.
2 Likes
You claimed something has to be provided, I claimed it does not. Since you seem to want it, the onus of proof is on you. I don’t have to disprove baseless claims that an argument requires a threshold.
… And it is way less efficient than a Heat pump on it’s own, becuase you conveniently chose to ignore the energy the data center cosumes. This is not a given, you choose to use the energy in a data center, if you claim that this is somehow good for heating you can’t just pretend the energy came from nothing. It is still way way more efficient to just, you know, not use energy to heat up a datacenter needlesly.
And yes, I am aware of all this stuff; But I don’t feel the need to pull my own argument from authority. Cheers.
2 Likes
You have again evaded the question about using LLMs in composing your messages.
Consider this an official warning. Please answer the question.
3 Likes
@nephele On the COP point you’re right: heat recovery doesn’t justify the datacenter’s energy consumption, it partially reduces it. I didn’t present it as a total solution, but as an example of a pragmatic approach.
That said: that datacenter exists independently of AI. It exists for the cloud, for hosting, for the services we all use every day — including this forum. The question isn’t “datacenter yes or no”, it’s “how do we make it as efficient as possible”. And on this Europe is legislating in a concrete and binding way.
The central point remains: banning LLMs from HaikuPorts doesn’t move the planet’s climate trajectory by a thousandth of a degree.
2 Likes
@waddlesplash I won’t answer that question. If you think that warrants a ban, go ahead. 
2 Likes
24-hour suspension for refusing to answer a simple question from moderators. (And you got an official warning earlier in this thread, too.)
If you don’t answer the question when you return, expect further suspensions.
2 Likes
Wow! What kind of agressive behaviour is this ?