I assume the ~33% of the population that still approves of Trump also like datacenters because he said so. And the rest are probably involved in the AI ecosystem somehow.
As they answer the poll on the data center hosted website, before ordering delivery by making a data center hosted phone call, with the driver getting to their house via datacenter hosted mapping service. The driver hands them their food along with a small Amazon delivery box that was waiting on their porch, delivered via the work of many data centers. They then go enjoy a streaming movie as they eat their dinner, after telling Alexa to dim the lights, and to order more napkins.
Perhaps not but there's a vast difference between the infrastructure that had been used prior to the current boom in hyperscalers. If I had to choose between DoorDash and breathing the exhaust generated by 30+ gas generators I know what I'd pick.
Yup. The headline is also about opposing more datacenters. The AI datacenter boom is now approaching 6% of US GDP and it's not surprising so many are feeling unnerved about the massive footprint of this tech on not only the economy but their physical spaces.
Maybe if they had, they would have opposed them earlier. On the whole, I'd say the surveillance industry has benefited much more from widespread ignorance than it has suffered.
I disagree. There is a huge difference between web host data centers and hyperscale compute data centers. It's disingenuous to use the same term to refer to both of these things. People are mad about the hyperscalers who want to pollute low income neighborhoods with noise and smog. Traditionally, data centers have used grid power, used far less power, and created far less noise than a "compute center".
Hyper scale data centers are absolutely not the same, and you're making it sound as if people have a real choice when oligarchs control everything.
All I'm getting from your comment is maybe the government should provide public options for payment processors, gig workers, social media, email, and operating systems.
Maybe they should start by nationalizing a few of these companies and provide the benefits to the public instead of the billionaires.
I get these surveys in the mail and promptly toss them in the garbage. The people willing to spend their precious time on them are probably the ones whose opinions matter the least.
I encourage you to read "About the Study".
"Ipsos conducted sampling, interviewing and tabulation for the survey using the KnowledgePanel, a nationwide survey panel designed to be representative of the U.S. adult population. KnowledgePanel members are recruited through probability sampling methods using address-based sampling. Panel members who do not have internet access are provided with a tablet and internet service. KnowledgePanel members receive a per survey incentive, usually the equivalent of $1 (though for some it is $2) in points that can be redeemed for cash or prizes."
I think for me at least, my main concern with data centers is the energy fueling them and the air pollution. It's not fair to buy up property around residential areas and force portable natural gas turbine emissions into people's lives. We need these powered by renewable energy at minimum.
Additionally, I would ask what the economic benefits are.
If they are structured to end up running at a loss and generate almost zero tax revenue (i.e. just payroll tax on a dozen full time staff) on large amounts of revenue, is that good for the people of the city/state/country?
I'm skeptical that the misinformation campaigns are run by China, et al. but I do believe there are a number of competing interests directly manipulating public perception.
I've stopped using AI outside of work and its so refreshing. I actually use a search engine again and read web pages written by humans 10 years ago to find information on things. I don't have to read that awful fucking prose that LLMs vomit up or put up with their pathetic sycophancy.
I like how the search engine, something that also just came into being, is the metric here for "normalcy".
Reminds me of the quote:
Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."
Americans, as a whole, lack intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and are easily manipulated by the media. The amount of misinformation on both sides of the AI and data center debate is staggering but stirring up fear drives engagement and revenue so here we are.
You can't use a product that you think is bad for society? I use my car everyday even though I would rather not because it's destroying the environment. I don't have other choices though, It's either that or I don't work
ChatGPT is now used by 1.2 billion people on a monthly basis. This is not an embedded product that people are being forced into. They are navigating to the website to use it.
But in many cases people are being forced into it. If you're a student in a college class of 20 where 1 person is using ChatGPT to cheat, you better bet you're going to start cheating too, unless you want to end up lower on the grading curve.
This is a tool for creation. So if it's giving one party a competitive advantage over another, that suggests it gives people creative powers. This is very much unlike a weapon where another party having a more effective weapon imposes only negative costs on you. Another party having more creative powers has significant positive externalities that benefit you.
I don't think you understand the value that people actually look for in creative media.
First, people seek authenticity. In written content, people want to know there is a real human author thinking about every word, and in photos, people do not want to be deceived by deepfakes. It's much harder to tell in a world of AI slop, hence the rise of apps like Pangram. This is a significant negative externality.
Second, people who invest their time learning creative fields seek recognition for all the hard work they have put in. Now their skills are devalued, again because of slop. This is another negative externality.
Having more pictures and videos is nice in some ways but your head is in the sand if you think it's all roses.
Not surprising when Sam keeps on talking about how his AI is going to take your job and Dario counters by saying his AI is going to kill you.
Most Americans would be correct.
Tbh I'm surprised it's only 57%, I had thought with all the reporting over the datacenter backlash it would be more like 75%+.
I assume the ~33% of the population that still approves of Trump also like datacenters because he said so. And the rest are probably involved in the AI ecosystem somehow.
As they answer the poll on the data center hosted website, before ordering delivery by making a data center hosted phone call, with the driver getting to their house via datacenter hosted mapping service. The driver hands them their food along with a small Amazon delivery box that was waiting on their porch, delivered via the work of many data centers. They then go enjoy a streaming movie as they eat their dinner, after telling Alexa to dim the lights, and to order more napkins.
I dont have an Alexa.
and maybe what I’m taking away from your post is too many god damned things rely on a datacenter.
"And yet...you are part of society. Interesting..."
Sorry, my point was that I don't think the average person understands they're constantly making use of data centers.
Perhaps not but there's a vast difference between the infrastructure that had been used prior to the current boom in hyperscalers. If I had to choose between DoorDash and breathing the exhaust generated by 30+ gas generators I know what I'd pick.
Yup. The headline is also about opposing more datacenters. The AI datacenter boom is now approaching 6% of US GDP and it's not surprising so many are feeling unnerved about the massive footprint of this tech on not only the economy but their physical spaces.
Maybe if they had, they would have opposed them earlier. On the whole, I'd say the surveillance industry has benefited much more from widespread ignorance than it has suffered.
Doest mean we need so many of them.
I disagree. There is a huge difference between web host data centers and hyperscale compute data centers. It's disingenuous to use the same term to refer to both of these things. People are mad about the hyperscalers who want to pollute low income neighborhoods with noise and smog. Traditionally, data centers have used grid power, used far less power, and created far less noise than a "compute center".
Hyper scale data centers are absolutely not the same, and you're making it sound as if people have a real choice when oligarchs control everything.
All I'm getting from your comment is maybe the government should provide public options for payment processors, gig workers, social media, email, and operating systems.
Maybe they should start by nationalizing a few of these companies and provide the benefits to the public instead of the billionaires.
I get these surveys in the mail and promptly toss them in the garbage. The people willing to spend their precious time on them are probably the ones whose opinions matter the least.
I encourage you to read "About the Study".
"Ipsos conducted sampling, interviewing and tabulation for the survey using the KnowledgePanel, a nationwide survey panel designed to be representative of the U.S. adult population. KnowledgePanel members are recruited through probability sampling methods using address-based sampling. Panel members who do not have internet access are provided with a tablet and internet service. KnowledgePanel members receive a per survey incentive, usually the equivalent of $1 (though for some it is $2) in points that can be redeemed for cash or prizes."
Their votes will count the same as yours.
I think for me at least, my main concern with data centers is the energy fueling them and the air pollution. It's not fair to buy up property around residential areas and force portable natural gas turbine emissions into people's lives. We need these powered by renewable energy at minimum.
Additionally, I would ask what the economic benefits are.
If they are structured to end up running at a loss and generate almost zero tax revenue (i.e. just payroll tax on a dozen full time staff) on large amounts of revenue, is that good for the people of the city/state/country?
I've seen interesting points made on this topic. Like how on the whole China/Asia poll more favourably in public perception and adoption of AI.
I'm still skeptical that the source of Western dissent is misinformation campaigns run by said Asiatic bloc, though.
Have you seen the behavior of all big tech companies in the US for the past few decades?
>Like how on the whole China/Asia poll more favourably in public perception and adoption of AI.
If I was Chinese I'd probably have more faith that AI advances are going to benefit society as a whole than just a few tech billionaires.
As an American, not so much.
I'm skeptical that the misinformation campaigns are run by China, et al. but I do believe there are a number of competing interests directly manipulating public perception.
And surely “the public” doesn’t include “thepryz” though!
I've stopped using AI outside of work and its so refreshing. I actually use a search engine again and read web pages written by humans 10 years ago to find information on things. I don't have to read that awful fucking prose that LLMs vomit up or put up with their pathetic sycophancy.
Reminds me of the quote:
Americans, as a whole, lack intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and are easily manipulated by the media. The amount of misinformation on both sides of the AI and data center debate is staggering but stirring up fear drives engagement and revenue so here we are.
Broadly writing off the opinions of people who don't share your views is the height of incuriosity.
Americans reveal their preferences in their consumer choices. AI is the most rapidly adopted service in human history.
You can't use a product that you think is bad for society? I use my car everyday even though I would rather not because it's destroying the environment. I don't have other choices though, It's either that or I don't work
When AI is jammed into every product and inserted at the top of ever TV search result, adoption isn’t really a choice
ChatGPT is now used by 1.2 billion people on a monthly basis. This is not an embedded product that people are being forced into. They are navigating to the website to use it.
But in many cases people are being forced into it. If you're a student in a college class of 20 where 1 person is using ChatGPT to cheat, you better bet you're going to start cheating too, unless you want to end up lower on the grading curve.
> Americans reveal their preferences in their consumer choices.
In the same sense that a wounded man cornered by lions might "reveal his preference" to jump off the cliff or be eaten alive.
Beware the pundit who extrapolates from that while blithely ignoring the true preference of "not dying".
hahahahahaha
Most Americans have an IQ of around 100.
IQ is a useless metric for intelligence.
Yet for this one they seem to be smarter than the rest
Yes, 100 is by definition the population mean of IQ.
They say it's bad for society, but look at what they choose to consume.
Appeal to hypocrisy is not a valid refutation.
Yes it is.
In what way?
Sounds like you are kind of telling on yourself because nobody I hang around with consumes AI content.
It is not contradictory at all. If your neighbor has a gun you probably buy a gun too in fact probably a bigger one.
This is a tool for creation. So if it's giving one party a competitive advantage over another, that suggests it gives people creative powers. This is very much unlike a weapon where another party having a more effective weapon imposes only negative costs on you. Another party having more creative powers has significant positive externalities that benefit you.
I don't think you understand the value that people actually look for in creative media.
First, people seek authenticity. In written content, people want to know there is a real human author thinking about every word, and in photos, people do not want to be deceived by deepfakes. It's much harder to tell in a world of AI slop, hence the rise of apps like Pangram. This is a significant negative externality.
Second, people who invest their time learning creative fields seek recognition for all the hard work they have put in. Now their skills are devalued, again because of slop. This is another negative externality.
Having more pictures and videos is nice in some ways but your head is in the sand if you think it's all roses.
When the only choices you can afford are _hot garbage_, it starts to seem like the game is rigged against you.