We progressives like to consume Hank Green videos uncritically, then cheer for his moderate resolves. Happens all the time. But, Hank is a centrist. He's often praised for progressive ideals that stretch the bounds of reality. That's an “us” problem, really. It's our tender hearts. They flutter when we see a guy talkin' science on the web. We are the sons and daughters of *I Fucking Love Science* after all. Plus, Hank is just so damn likable. While writing this post, I took a break to watch an unrelated Hank Green video. Just for fun! He's everywhere. Hank is like the Pedro Pascal of Youtube. But, something has changed in Hank that goes beyond his typical boring white guy-centrist world view. This is, dare I say, radical centrism. It's a place where we no longer use math and science to conclude “there's nothing to see here, folks!” It's a place I like to call techno-centrism. Where all the threats to humanity are science fiction, and the actual proven evidence of oppression is now “INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER” (shout out to all my Isaac Asimov fans). In two short months, Hank went from doubting AI's usefulness to granting it sentience. AI is suddenly capable of so many things. In the sponsored video *We've Lost Control of AI*, Hank claims AI won gold at the Math Olympiad (it didn't), and that agentic AI can book our flights ([good luck with that](https://micro.fromjason.xyz/2025/12/17/simulated-company-shows-most-ai.html)). These claims help Hank lead his audience to some spooky conclusions. Namely, that AI is a sentient god capable of an extinction-level event. That's a helluva logical leap since September. Hank's recent string of AI videos feel wildly out of character. The influencer/philanthropist no longer seems comfortable in his own skin, and not in the cute nerdy way. Ever since *The State of the AI Industry is Freaking Me Out*, Hank’s been talkin’ real different. Like someone has got to'em. Who suddenly has Hank's ear? And who, or what, changed Hank's mind? A truckload of cash? I kid. 👀 But seriously, Hank, blink twice if you’re in trouble. In *Why is Everyone So Wrong About AI Water Use??*, you can almost picture Sam Altman just out of frame. His hand wrapped firmly around a cocked revolver pointed in Hank’s general direction. Hank wants this video to be over. Watch it for yourself. There’s a condescension and mania that feels really off-brand. Hank Green, *[Why is Everyone so Wrong About AI's Water Use](https://youtu.be/H_c6MWk7PQc?si=3NdCwNMeQGxfCQI3)*: > we don't all need to understand this stuff, but then, it gets dragged into the discourse, and of course, we all talk out of our asses while experts rub their temples. Hank admits OpenAI won't allow anyone to verify its water usage figures. He then spends the next 23 minutes and 30 seconds presenting his toilet paper math on the matter. And those experts rubbing their temples that Hank mentions? Absent from the video. The only “expert” I can find who has mirrored Hank's math, is Effective Altruist and big tech mouth piece Andy Masley. Masley, unsurprisingly, *loves* Hank's AI water video.  Hanks napkin math mirrors Andy's, in that both rely on the absence of real world water consumption data. None of the big AI companies are sharing how much water its data center kingdoms need to operate. Hank's math is based on a quote from Sam Altman. Andy's math is based on an old Microsoft press release. If OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft chose to hide its water consumption data from the public, how can anyone form an opinion? They can't. That's the point. But also, does it really matter? Is there anything Sam Altman or Satya Nadella can say to you that would gain your trust? The numbers matter. It matters to environmentalists and politicians. It matters to the small communities with increased energy bills. But does it matter to you? Based on the history of big tech, do you trust them to build a trillion dollar data center kingdom stretching across our country? I don't. And that's before I consider that all the big AI companies are hiding their water consumption figures from the public. That's before I consider the numbers presented by environmentalists. That's before I consider that OpenAI wants its hands on a nuclear power plant just to run its AI models (how much watch will that take?). I don't trust the executives of these companies. Mostly because they lie. But also because a significant number of them believe they've invented god. Because they're lobbying Congress for AI licensing laws. And it's working, too. Because they've convinced prominent voices like Hank Green that AI is capable of an extinction-level event, and unless we hand them the master keys, we may all die violent deaths. So, even if Hank's interpretation of the water consumption (non-existent) figures turn out to be accurate, and our time is better spent focused on the water consumption of corn (Hank really made this point), I still don't trust OpenAI to build something so grand that it needs its own energy grid. I wouldn't trust Sam Altman to watch my goldfish lest he use Nemo's water to cool his NVIDA GPU. All that aside, should the public not be given the actual water consumption figures before we allow these companies to spend an actual trillion dollars on data centers in poor neighborhoods? Why doe that question seem to be completely lost on Hank Green until the last thirty seconds of a 24-minute verbal vomit video? How they manipulate the math.  Let me show you how Masley manipulates the figures so that you leave believing that data centers aren't water hogs. At 00:56, Hank concludes that OpenAI's reported numbers on water consumption “are true.” It takes an another 5 minutes and 20 seconds for Hank to change his mind and conclude that OpenAI's claims are “a lie.” Any viewer unwilling to stick it out, leaves believing OpenAI's water consumption isn't a big deal. Anyone who watched the video in its entirety (god bless you), likely couldn't say one way or another. Though, a lot of Effective Altruist-types and AI accelerists appear happy with the takeaway. In 23 minutes, the entire length of the video, Hank does not mention once the material harms of AI water and energy—increases in utility bills, environmental damages, pollution. Nor does Hank mention that right now, there are small towns all over the country fighting back against data center being built. Hank Green's AI water consumption video doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's a timely retort to the recent reporting on small towns fighting back against big tech and data centers being built in their communities. Hank also makes no mention of our neighbors and their fight. Hank Green's AI water consumption video makes it seem like these AI companies and their data centers aren't causing any harm. *There's nothing to see here, folks*. It's a timely retort against the harms of data centers, and contrasts small communities rejecting data centers playing out right now, in real time. Though, Hank makes no mention of this pushback directly. The video lacks any coherent takeaway, besides the encouragement for his audience to continue arguing over the semantics of water consumption, and not the material harms these data centers and they energy use caused to local communities. If Hank is going to provide the neuance of water consumption, wouldn't it be important to explain why this issue is important, and who it affects if he's wrong? And like his past two videos on AI, Hank does leave us a clue to his self-awareness: > You might guess that I'm a little apprehensive about this one. Any amount of "actually this might not be the most important thing to focus on" can be interpreted these days as an unacceptable defense of Al or whatever, It feels rushed and convoluted. You can feel his apprehension which he acknowledges in the video's description. You can picture Sam Altman, just off camera holding a gun to his head. We know that when it comes to reading someone else's words on AI, Hank is for hire. For this particular video, if Hank was paid, I feel sorry for both Hank and the folks who paid him. It's like Hank thinks that the average person is engaged with this issue for the science of it all, and completely misses the point that new data centers in poor communities will result in higher utilities and water bills. Hank makes no mention of this. --- Welcome back. Feel more confused about AI’s water usage than before watching that video? You’re not alone. It was a confusing video. Ultimately, Hank’s message seems to be—everything is fine, OpenAI isn’t using that much water. --- > The appeal of predictive AI is based on the mass delusion that AI is good at prediction — AI Snake Oil --- The debate over AI energy and water consumption doesn't exist in a vacuum. Hank's video, too, exists squarely in a moment of protest. Working class communities are fighting against data center proposals in their small towns. Increased cost of living brought by these data centers are a key argument of the protest. To discuss AI water consumption without contextualizing the debate; without sharing who's affected if Hank is wrong, is a dishonest omission. Hank gives his audience context on stuff all the time. It's sort of his whole thing. Why stop now? --- Hank's argument that AI companies are not using a lot of water completely rests on whatever stats AI companies are willing to share with the public, which turns out to be mostly vague estimates of future water use. https://x.com/AndyMasley/status/1980317316165324942 https://news.microsoft.com/source/latam/company-news-es/microsoft-launches-its-first-hyper-scale-cloud-datacenter-region-in-mexico/ --- I find it hard to believe that Hank is coming up with these videos and opinions all on his own, independent from the propoganda efforts he mirrors. These are not Hank Green's words, but a mirror of an argument Andy Masley tweeted. Andy Masley is not an expert in data center water consumption. --- The reason why you can’t make heads or tails is because Hank fails to contextualize the argument. ___ Hank really focus on OpenAI and its claims on water use. He makes it clear that OpenAI doesn’t share that information. But he leaves out two key pieces of info: 1. OpenAI doesn’t have much infrastructure at the moment. Most of the existing data centers and future data centers are being built by Google, Microsoft, Meta, etc. 2. OpenAI isn’t the only company that refuses to disclose its water usage. All of the companies are hiding their water usage from us. And that’s why Hank is forced to use napkin math. And napkin math is exactly what these companies want us relying on. So that its confusing and we just stay arguing about the abstract. --- Three separate times Hank says we dont need to know the details of this complex issue. He also wants us to remember that other industries use water too, like the corn industry. --- Hank believes that the people working on the resources plan of water consumption are going to do an “okay job of it” and we shouldn’t worry about it. But also, these build outs of AI data centers aren’t going to happen. But if they do, dont worry about. It ti won’t happen. But also it might. But you don’t need to know the details so it’s okay. > Our economy is being wagered by not very many people, making very strange choices, based on an imagining of the future, that is honestly, I think, unlikely to occur. That statement is in direct conflict with the sponsored video Hank made a month ago titled “We’ve Lost Control of AI”. > I remain fairly unconvinced that people are going to continue fighting giant machines that raise their electricity bills, while eating jobs, into their communities. There seems to be a great deal of debate on whether these tools are actually that useful at all. Which, I can’t find a place in. Like, I just simply don’t know. My brother in christ, why didn’t you just lead with that. Why wait for the last 20 seconds of a 24 minute video? Based on an imagining of the future --- Corporations not sharing their stats *is the story*. The discourse is rancid because corporations are hiding the stats. --- Hank says from both sides. Who's the other side, Hank? The trillion dollar corporate machine, with an abundance of power and influence, infinite resources, who control our communication channels, own all the news outlets, and help write our laws. But who's the other side of the fight? Poor folks fighting for their communities? Environmental scientists? @joe8723?