The irony of the title of this piece is not lost on me.

With proposals for data centers mushrooming up throughout our region, state and country, there is no end of demand it seems.

However, there is little talk about assessing data needs — essentially gathering data on the demand for data — and having a conversation about curbing consumption or at least consuming consciously.

The answer to the question of “How much?” is always an unbridled and unanimous “More.”

In order to remain competitive, companies are baking artificial intelligence into their products regardless of consumer demand.

The most notable example is Google.

By its own estimates, an AI search uses 10 times the energy of a traditional Google search engine result. There are some who suggest that an AI search is more efficient (by some measures like time savings but not energy or water consumption) since it leads to more “zero click” searches where many users take the AI answer without further investigation (perhaps problematic in itself).

Within the last year, Google initially unveiled AI search results at the top of the screen, subverting traditional search engine results. I noticed there was no option for turning this feature off and it alarmed me with the energy use in mind. Then they introduced the “AI Mode” tab in the top left to allow searchers to opt in for this more energy heavy option, which admittedly is sometimes the best tool for the job.

Initially, it was my understanding that this would allow conscious choice when deciding to use AI; however, it seems that Google makes the choice for us still depending on if you ask a targeted or open-ended question.

My question is why is there no conversation about curbing consumption as we face exponential demand for energy (and the related land, water and mineral resources)?

The AI boom has been great for the stock market, and consumers love how all the data in the world (real and imagined by trained computers) is available on our devices 24/7.

But when will enough be enough? How can a consumer distance themselves from the root causes of the issue short of giving up technology entirely these days?

So far, with the wisdom of unchecked capitalism, our leaders have decided to feed the beast.

The technology has gotten ahead of the infrastructure so the solution proposed with directives and tax incentives is to build data centers, which are essentially privately owned specialized utilities meant to keep the growing demand for AI and crypto, well, growing. This market driven solution is aimed to keep pressure off our local power grids and prevent household utility costs from going up, as ideally the users of the technology will bear the costs.

Now my friends and neighbors don’t want a data center in their backyard, and I feel like it is chickens coming home to roost.

I wish us well in our right to community self-determination as municipalities scramble to get data center zoning ordinances in place before (and sometimes after) applications for these mammoth facilities pop up. But we also need to ask “Why?” It’s becoming more and more painfully obvious to me that nobody is talking about stemming the demand for data.

Don’t get me wrong — there are amazing and wonderful things being accomplished with AI (sorry, but I think the jury is still out on crypto).

However, the excessive and frivolous use of AI seems equivalent to leaving the faucet running. It is a waste of energy and resources.

I believe we need to return to promoting the three R’s — reduce, reuse and recycle.

There is no silver bullet for dealing with the impact of our modern lifestyles, but that does not excuse remaining willfully ignorant.

Policymakers and consumers need to demand an “off switch” for AI where appropriate. We need to make the cost of data common knowledge so that people can consider limiting their use of these increasingly energy intensive technologies.

Amber Finsel is a local business owner and resident of Jim Thorpe.