The anti-AI sentiment has more to do with tech than AI. Big Tech's actions speak to how little they care about people, and people have picked up on it loud and clear.
Tech companies could build data centers in ways which are more palatable to local residents, but using less water or straining local electricity grid less costs more. And they care about costs more than communities. Even though a coal plant is objectively worse than a data center, that is (understandably) what local residents' sentiment is.
Big Tech is going to face ever growing opposition until they start catering to the needs of the communities they want to operate in. They aren't entitled to operate like this in any of our communities.
> anti-AI sentiment has more to do with tech than AI
It's absolutely concentrated in AI. Billionaire taxes aren't as popular as datacenter bans.
> Tech companies could build data centers in ways which are more palatable to local residents
Tech has been doing this for decades without breaking the law [1] and driving up power prices [2]. It did it without constantly screaming about how it's going to cause mass unemployment or end the world. It did it without funneling money to–and being publicly championed by–historically-hated politicians.
I'm not suggesting AI data centers aren't the focal point, but it is more a symptom than the disease. Big Tech does so much to infuriate people, and their attitude towards AI data centers is just the peak expression of it. Tech is all about:
1. Making sure they are the only industry that wins
2. Dark pattern subscriptions that are very difficult to cancel
3. Garbage customer support, even for paying customers
4. Rampant privacy violations
5. No loyalty to employees even in rich times (e.g. MSFT asking 25% of employees to leave when they are absolutely printing money)
6. Tax avoidance at all costs, so there is no economic benefit to a data center in your location.
7. A faux moral high ground that they'll abandon the second they need to ingratiate themselves to corrupt politicians or need to pollute more for AI.
8. Only shareholders matter. Forget customers, communities, or employees.
It is an unmistakable stench that teaches people that tech doesn't value them at all beyond a monthly subscription.
I've worked in tech my whole career, and our industry sucks ass. It is only getting worse too.
These are valid gripes–I'd guess most people on HN agree with them. But this election wasn't about dark patterns. The fury is specific to datacenters and AI. If policymakers miss this and get distracted with a list such as yours, they will have failed.
> At some point, we techy folks have to reckon with how much people hate what we build.
Only the techy folks building the stuff people hate have to reckon with that. There are plenty of techy folks building perfectly likeable products; I'd hazard to guess that only a minority of programmers are involved in the creation and development of LLMs and LLM accessories. I will grant that the ones that are building all the things that folks hate so much are a very very noisy minority, though, near-deafening really.
I think something that isn’t talked about enough is how the tech industry burned its bridges in the last era before AI.
For example, Facebook was a site you trusted for enjoyable socializing and it morphed into a horrifically evil platform.
Amazon.com is a massive rug pull where it used to be an amazing place to buy good products at good prices, now it’s a hellhole of dark patterns, sponsored listings, and upsells.
Try to find one popular Internet company from ~2010 that hasn’t been massively enshittified or turned into dystopian surveillance/algorithm/addiction capitalism.
The tech industry trained its own customers to believe that any product they launch will eventually get way worse than it is now.
You're demonstrating a classic engineer blind spot here: just because people are using the service doesn't mean they like you, and that they won't cheer when you're on the gallows. Indeed, feeling like you're forced to use a service because it drove all the alternatives out of business generates the most resentment of all.
Don't mistake usage numbers for public appreciation.
Amazon may be better than getting in your car and driving downtown to visit several stores to see if they have what I want. It can still be worse than it was five years ago, though, and that difference can still grate on users, even while the users continue to use it.
Facebook may be the best way of seeing updates on what my grandchildren are up to, and it can be much more of a dark pattern, enslaving mess compared to what it was five years ago. People can still feel the difference and resent it, even while they look at their grandkids' pictures.
I dont think that'll overcome the fury of having these execs arrogantly make your local government sign an NDA about the new data center plans. Thats such a cartoonishly evil subversion of democracy its crazy. These people benefit greatly from living and working in a country that got here because of these principles, and they have no concerns about subverting them? Couldnt pass a ninth grade civics class indeed
A lot of capital was looking for a place to get parked. AI and hardware seems like it has the best prospects going forward - especially with baby-boomers retiring and the new generation getting less opportunity to climb the economic ladder (aka catering to them is not attractive to investors).
AI is attractive to governments similar to any tech capable of war, so the race for offer capacity would give tech giants massive capital from lucrative government contracts that then gets into the flywheel of model training and selling to the masses.
The problem was they built data centers in a sloppy, dirty, loud way. Imagine if the first cars were like that? Or the first electric distribution methods? Do it right if you want to grow it.
The political lesson is being missed in Silicon Valley. We want it to be about Iran [1].
Instead it’s about cost of living, corruption and the perception of horrible people doing well. These are less easy to one off with policies. But the public has found those options nevertheless, one of which is blocking data centers (which seem to feature all three).
You'd think silicon valley would be more sympathetic towards people who don't want their communities turned into data centers given how people in the bay area think it's an affront against them personally for affordable housing to be built anywhere in their general vicinity.
The homelessness problem in the bay area is mostly caused by the extremely high housing prices, which are ultimately caused by NIMBYism; and by the stupid and self-destructive empathy of the local progressive elites who think it's oppressive to use the police to force the most dysfunctional visibly homeless people living on the streets into involuntary treatment and shelter.
Neither of these phenomena are primarily the fault of the Silicon Valley tech industry; and NIMBYism in particular is largely driven by people who bought bay area houses many decades ago (my family is from the bay area, and I'm absolutely including my relatives in my parents' generation in that number - none of them work in the tech industry).
It is obvious that is about fight for resources and supremacy between humans and the machine where the machine is also the capital that seeks the discount for human labor. How can the competition between capital and labor be resolved when capital has found a replacement for labor and competing for resources to serve its own needs? Will capitalists and technocrats give up? zero chance of that. Will labor and humans accept the machine and capital supremacy? zero chance of that.
So the conflict of interest will just escalate more and more.
I mean, it should surprise no one that the sheer dislike of the billionaires making AI is ruining the perception of the technology they are building. If we should go and blame someone, it's certainly them. I agree 100% with OPs article.
The protests are a good counterweight to the big tech AI propaganda. The former is a consequence of the latter. It’d be better if everyone was moderate and reasonable, measured and considerate, but that’s not the world we live in.
Maybe. If the AI folks dig in their heels, that will happen.
If we build datacenters in a way that benefits everyone, i.e. not solely as the corrupt, private enterprises they’ve been so far, one that leans into our political economy’s strengths, I suspect we could do it more sustainably.
We can do that by negotiating appropriate tax agreements with local municipalities. Instead we’re getting categorical bans across the board. People have been convinced that datacenters are an unsalvegable evil. It’s a bit extreme.
> We can do that by negotiating appropriate tax agreements with local municipalities. Instead we’re getting categorical bans across the board
One side started ramrodding construction through secret council meetings [1] that arrested folks who spoke out against them [2]. (Or ignoring permits altogether [3].) That’s the side to blame for escalation.
It’s also the side that makes a moratorium rational while we figure out a process that works—assuming good faith doesn’t work when the guys building these things are being such clusterfucks locally and nationally.
People have been building datacenters for decades. This crop of idiots took a crap in the punch bowl and is now upset we won’t drink it.
Local council meetings get heated all the time and shadiness is everywhere. Doesn’t usually result in a blanket industry ban across multiple states. I get it, people are mad. They are cutting off the nose to spite the face.
> Local council meetings get heated all the time and shadiness is everywhere
To the point of folks getting arrested in multiple cities? About the same nationally-salient issue? No. Musk, Altman et al couldn't have been more effective if they'd been trying to create a national grassroots movement.
> people are mad. They are cutting off the nose to spite the face
This is an immature response to a real problem. Perhaps we need a changing of guard. Perhaps the folks currently at the helm simply lack the empathy to be effective at this job.
Agreed! It seems to me that a model like public utilities or even NASA might be a better approach. This just doesn't seem like the sort of thing that is a good match for profit motive.
People do not hate AI. I know a lot of people, through work and social life and there isn’t a single person not hating AI but even disliking it slightly. Confusing not wanting a fucking Data Center where you live with “hating AI” is a real thing though
Personally almost everyone I know absolutely despises AI. That's to say nothing of all the people who had their work stolen to make AI or who have had their careers destroyed by AI.
Calling it a psyop is a non-explanation. Water is wet and your opponents will oppose you. That much is given. The interesting question is why the side supporting data centers failed to get their message through.
Did they not know how to argue for their case convincingly? Were they unwilling to do what was needed to get people on their side? Were their ideas against the interests of most people? Or was the issue mostly about the people in charge?
Republics have historically fared well against more authoritarian societies. In no small part because they are not stuck with the leaders they happen to have. If a leader becomes a liability, a republic can easily replace them. Companies can also do that, except when the leader also happens to be a major shareholder.
Not only that, but this is basically the sales pitch of AI:
Voter: So, tell me about this AI stuff. You wanna build one in my backyard right?
AI CEO: That's right! It'll increase the cost of your water, electricity, and likely lower your property values due to people leaving because of the 24/7 daytime lighting and noise pollution!
Voter: Well I kinda don't like that at all!
AI CEO: Great! Because that's not all! Once we really improve on our AI, it will eat your job for now and forever! And, wait till we embody them in robots. Whoo-boy! You won't even be able to drive a truck or plumb pipes for a living! Ain't that great?
Voter: What? No! That sounds terrible!
AI CEO (thinking): Why can't I get to these schmucks?
It's the economy stupid. If you don't offer material improvement with UBI instead of selfishly flexing your utopian visions of Star Trek robes and replicators and you and only you living for a thousand years, don't be surprised if voters don't give you what you want politically.
Right - so instead of getting mad at datacenters, how about getting out of the way of building more powerplants?
Electricity is the ultimate fungible resource. You can convert electricity into food, housing, medicine, video games, football games (either sort), transportation, etc.
The more electricity we produce, the more broadly prosperous we will be.
It's not a question of needing more electricity - we don't need any electricity at all. We got by without it for 100k years until just the last few. But still, the more we have, the better all our lives will be.
> Right - so instead of getting mad at datacenters, how about getting out of the way of building more powerplants?
Grid upgrades take years at the best. Utilities are already doing what they can, with re-conductoring existing power lines, adding more substations, etc.
To add to that: Datacenters are not waiting for those grid upgrades, or at least they are not planning to. They're planning to add onsite generation, which will be more noisy and more polluting per kWh than real power plants would be.
It's a real problem because we were sold a post industrial dream which could only happen if the hardest computation anyone would ever have to do is sending an http packet.
Electricity is destiny, if you can't produce it you will be a puppet of those who can. See Germany.
I feel for the people and their concerns, but until about 6 months ago the average person neither knew nor cared what a datacenter was, and probably still would not, were it not for some well-edited TikToks.
Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work? If you believe something should change, then you attempt to create a well crafted message to convince people to agree with you.
Yes, issues come and go. The datacenter discourse is to be understood as part of the broader discontent of the population against the tech elites, who are seen acting incredibly contemptful of democracy and constantly in bed with this corrupt administration. Turns out, complete disregard for the opinions of the masses and borderline autocratic decision-making lead to pushback.
And pretending that this opposition (that represents 70% of Americans, if polls are to be believed) is just a Chinese psyop is not helping your cause, because that is factually incorrect and extremely disrespectful to the people holding these views.
Yes, keep saying "hysteria" and calling opinions other than yours "a psyop". That will definitely win over hearts and minds instead of catalyzing even more ferocious opposition.
People’s opinions are valid, and I wish tech CEOs were better at addressing them, but ultimately it is hysteria and it is a psyop, and the US will regret it.
Maybe the people building the data centers should actually do a decent job of winning people over to their side then. They could start by rejecting MAGA and using their money to help make its victims whole. Then maybe they could figure out a way to make AI actually good for your average person.
How is it hysteria if there is no conceivable way that this will improve the material conditions of the people? If there is money to be made it will be funneled up, not down.
If you disagree that AI has “no conceivable way” to make people’s lives better, I guess we have much deeper fault lines to cross before we come to an understanding. But regardless of whether you or I are correct, I believe there is a lot of historical precedent thag societies that tend to not completely blanket ban entire industries tend to do better in the long run.
Who the hell thought that this was a good idea? They could have built this DC just a few miles away in the middle of an empty field a few miles away and avoided all the problems.
The problem is the technology. I get very well paid in my tech job and can live forever on my FAANG salary, it’s not about the money:
There are 2 types of tasks people do throughout their life.
1. Creative tasks that provide self fulfillment
2. Uncreative monotonous menial tasks that degrade life.
AI takes 1 and ruins it to 2. The jury is out if it will fully take your job, I don’t know if that’ll happen but no one asked for automation of these creative tasks.
When you point these AI bros talk nonsense like cure cancer, Dyson sphere, China bla bla bla.
At the very least, models need to be post trained to stop outputting art, this will never happen though, meanwhile I will enjoy my half a mil a year, while all these AI bros lose their mind over graphs, loops or whatever nonsense they’re concocting up.
Nothing about this is inevitable, AI is as inevitable as nuclear, it seems to require even more capex than nuclear.
The anti-AI sentiment has more to do with tech than AI. Big Tech's actions speak to how little they care about people, and people have picked up on it loud and clear.
Tech companies could build data centers in ways which are more palatable to local residents, but using less water or straining local electricity grid less costs more. And they care about costs more than communities. Even though a coal plant is objectively worse than a data center, that is (understandably) what local residents' sentiment is.
Big Tech is going to face ever growing opposition until they start catering to the needs of the communities they want to operate in. They aren't entitled to operate like this in any of our communities.
> anti-AI sentiment has more to do with tech than AI
It's absolutely concentrated in AI. Billionaire taxes aren't as popular as datacenter bans.
> Tech companies could build data centers in ways which are more palatable to local residents
Tech has been doing this for decades without breaking the law [1] and driving up power prices [2]. It did it without constantly screaming about how it's going to cause mass unemployment or end the world. It did it without funneling money to–and being publicly championed by–historically-hated politicians.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=JumpCrisscross
[2] https://www.factcheck.org/2026/10/data-centers-and-electrici...
I'm not suggesting AI data centers aren't the focal point, but it is more a symptom than the disease. Big Tech does so much to infuriate people, and their attitude towards AI data centers is just the peak expression of it. Tech is all about:
1. Making sure they are the only industry that wins
2. Dark pattern subscriptions that are very difficult to cancel
3. Garbage customer support, even for paying customers
4. Rampant privacy violations
5. No loyalty to employees even in rich times (e.g. MSFT asking 25% of employees to leave when they are absolutely printing money)
6. Tax avoidance at all costs, so there is no economic benefit to a data center in your location.
7. A faux moral high ground that they'll abandon the second they need to ingratiate themselves to corrupt politicians or need to pollute more for AI.
8. Only shareholders matter. Forget customers, communities, or employees.
It is an unmistakable stench that teaches people that tech doesn't value them at all beyond a monthly subscription.
I've worked in tech my whole career, and our industry sucks ass. It is only getting worse too.
These are valid gripes–I'd guess most people on HN agree with them. But this election wasn't about dark patterns. The fury is specific to datacenters and AI. If policymakers miss this and get distracted with a list such as yours, they will have failed.
> At some point, we techy folks have to reckon with how much people hate what we build.
Only the techy folks building the stuff people hate have to reckon with that. There are plenty of techy folks building perfectly likeable products; I'd hazard to guess that only a minority of programmers are involved in the creation and development of LLMs and LLM accessories. I will grant that the ones that are building all the things that folks hate so much are a very very noisy minority, though, near-deafening really.
I think something that isn’t talked about enough is how the tech industry burned its bridges in the last era before AI.
For example, Facebook was a site you trusted for enjoyable socializing and it morphed into a horrifically evil platform.
Amazon.com is a massive rug pull where it used to be an amazing place to buy good products at good prices, now it’s a hellhole of dark patterns, sponsored listings, and upsells.
Try to find one popular Internet company from ~2010 that hasn’t been massively enshittified or turned into dystopian surveillance/algorithm/addiction capitalism.
The tech industry trained its own customers to believe that any product they launch will eventually get way worse than it is now.
All of the examples you listed are continuing to gain and retain users at astronomical rates.
Meta social platforms are losing users, as reported in their own financial filings:
https://www.theverge.com/tech/921089/meta-earnings-q1-2026-u...
Q3 Amazon’s year over year net sales growth is 2%.
https://www.retaildive.com/news/amazon-ceo-retail-business-i...
This is a similar growth rate to Verizon.
You're demonstrating a classic engineer blind spot here: just because people are using the service doesn't mean they like you, and that they won't cheer when you're on the gallows. Indeed, feeling like you're forced to use a service because it drove all the alternatives out of business generates the most resentment of all.
Don't mistake usage numbers for public appreciation.
But that doesn't mean they like it.
Amazon may be better than getting in your car and driving downtown to visit several stores to see if they have what I want. It can still be worse than it was five years ago, though, and that difference can still grate on users, even while the users continue to use it.
Facebook may be the best way of seeing updates on what my grandchildren are up to, and it can be much more of a dark pattern, enslaving mess compared to what it was five years ago. People can still feel the difference and resent it, even while they look at their grandkids' pictures.
I think people would like AI technologies a lot more if they were the ones making money off of it.
Well yeah. But the profits are privatised while the costs are shared.
https://isaiprofitable.com/
You are forgetting about the grifting part where they dump all of this crap on our 401ks
[dead]
Big Coal doesn't think that heating homes is an inefficient use of furnaces.
Maybe if more people used AI to make fun non-ai products like https://santawho.com there would be less aversion to it.
I dont think that'll overcome the fury of having these execs arrogantly make your local government sign an NDA about the new data center plans. Thats such a cartoonishly evil subversion of democracy its crazy. These people benefit greatly from living and working in a country that got here because of these principles, and they have no concerns about subverting them? Couldnt pass a ninth grade civics class indeed
A lot of capital was looking for a place to get parked. AI and hardware seems like it has the best prospects going forward - especially with baby-boomers retiring and the new generation getting less opportunity to climb the economic ladder (aka catering to them is not attractive to investors).
AI is attractive to governments similar to any tech capable of war, so the race for offer capacity would give tech giants massive capital from lucrative government contracts that then gets into the flywheel of model training and selling to the masses.
The problem was they built data centers in a sloppy, dirty, loud way. Imagine if the first cars were like that? Or the first electric distribution methods? Do it right if you want to grow it.
The political lesson is being missed in Silicon Valley. We want it to be about Iran [1].
Instead it’s about cost of living, corruption and the perception of horrible people doing well. These are less easy to one off with policies. But the public has found those options nevertheless, one of which is blocking data centers (which seem to feature all three).
[1] https://x.com/paulg/status/2118041310699352558
You'd think silicon valley would be more sympathetic towards people who don't want their communities turned into data centers given how people in the bay area think it's an affront against them personally for affordable housing to be built anywhere in their general vicinity.
Silicon valkey doesnt have that sort of empathy. If they did they wouldnt have let such a crazy homeless problem develop while they made obscene money
The homelessness problem in the bay area is mostly caused by the extremely high housing prices, which are ultimately caused by NIMBYism; and by the stupid and self-destructive empathy of the local progressive elites who think it's oppressive to use the police to force the most dysfunctional visibly homeless people living on the streets into involuntary treatment and shelter.
Neither of these phenomena are primarily the fault of the Silicon Valley tech industry; and NIMBYism in particular is largely driven by people who bought bay area houses many decades ago (my family is from the bay area, and I'm absolutely including my relatives in my parents' generation in that number - none of them work in the tech industry).
It is obvious that is about fight for resources and supremacy between humans and the machine where the machine is also the capital that seeks the discount for human labor. How can the competition between capital and labor be resolved when capital has found a replacement for labor and competing for resources to serve its own needs? Will capitalists and technocrats give up? zero chance of that. Will labor and humans accept the machine and capital supremacy? zero chance of that.
So the conflict of interest will just escalate more and more.
1. "ai will take your jobs" 2. "We need data centers for AI" 3. "How could you vote against data centers"
Idk maybe step 1 wasn't popular.
I mean, it should surprise no one that the sheer dislike of the billionaires making AI is ruining the perception of the technology they are building. If we should go and blame someone, it's certainly them. I agree 100% with OPs article.
That's one thing ruining the perception. I wouldn't even say it's the most important one.
[flagged]
The protests are a good counterweight to the big tech AI propaganda. The former is a consequence of the latter. It’d be better if everyone was moderate and reasonable, measured and considerate, but that’s not the world we live in.
Maybe. If the AI folks dig in their heels, that will happen.
If we build datacenters in a way that benefits everyone, i.e. not solely as the corrupt, private enterprises they’ve been so far, one that leans into our political economy’s strengths, I suspect we could do it more sustainably.
We can do that by negotiating appropriate tax agreements with local municipalities. Instead we’re getting categorical bans across the board. People have been convinced that datacenters are an unsalvegable evil. It’s a bit extreme.
> We can do that by negotiating appropriate tax agreements with local municipalities. Instead we’re getting categorical bans across the board
One side started ramrodding construction through secret council meetings [1] that arrested folks who spoke out against them [2]. (Or ignoring permits altogether [3].) That’s the side to blame for escalation.
It’s also the side that makes a moratorium rational while we figure out a process that works—assuming good faith doesn’t work when the guys building these things are being such clusterfucks locally and nationally.
People have been building datacenters for decades. This crop of idiots took a crap in the punch bowl and is now upset we won’t drink it.
[1] https://www.selc.org/news/were-suing-over-openais-secret-20b...
[2] https://www.404media.co/bodycam-footage-video-claremore-okla...
[3] https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/pollution-musks-unper...
Local council meetings get heated all the time and shadiness is everywhere. Doesn’t usually result in a blanket industry ban across multiple states. I get it, people are mad. They are cutting off the nose to spite the face.
> Local council meetings get heated all the time and shadiness is everywhere
To the point of folks getting arrested in multiple cities? About the same nationally-salient issue? No. Musk, Altman et al couldn't have been more effective if they'd been trying to create a national grassroots movement.
> people are mad. They are cutting off the nose to spite the face
This is an immature response to a real problem. Perhaps we need a changing of guard. Perhaps the folks currently at the helm simply lack the empathy to be effective at this job.
Agreed! It seems to me that a model like public utilities or even NASA might be a better approach. This just doesn't seem like the sort of thing that is a good match for profit motive.
People's hatred of AI is no psyop. People just hate AI.
People do not hate AI. I know a lot of people, through work and social life and there isn’t a single person not hating AI but even disliking it slightly. Confusing not wanting a fucking Data Center where you live with “hating AI” is a real thing though
Personally almost everyone I know absolutely despises AI. That's to say nothing of all the people who had their work stolen to make AI or who have had their careers destroyed by AI.
I hate AI, there I disproved your anecdote. Anecdotally everyone I know also viscerally hates AI.
Hates as in they would rather shoot themselves in the head than read AI slop, or listen to AI music or appreciate AI art etc.
what does hating AI even mean? they don’t use it ever for anything? forced to use it at work against their will?
Calling it a psyop is a non-explanation. Water is wet and your opponents will oppose you. That much is given. The interesting question is why the side supporting data centers failed to get their message through.
Did they not know how to argue for their case convincingly? Were they unwilling to do what was needed to get people on their side? Were their ideas against the interests of most people? Or was the issue mostly about the people in charge?
Republics have historically fared well against more authoritarian societies. In no small part because they are not stuck with the leaders they happen to have. If a leader becomes a liability, a republic can easily replace them. Companies can also do that, except when the leader also happens to be a major shareholder.
Big tech has been actively burning bridges for a decade and you find it easier to believe China brainwashed 7 out of 10 Americans overnight.
American anti-datacenter sentiment is not a Chinese psyop; that doesn't mean that sentiment is well-founded or a good thing for US interests.
It's possible to build datacenters in a way people find more palatable.
The increase in the cost of power per kWh is a real problem for a lot of people.
Not only that, but this is basically the sales pitch of AI:
Voter: So, tell me about this AI stuff. You wanna build one in my backyard right?
AI CEO: That's right! It'll increase the cost of your water, electricity, and likely lower your property values due to people leaving because of the 24/7 daytime lighting and noise pollution!
Voter: Well I kinda don't like that at all!
AI CEO: Great! Because that's not all! Once we really improve on our AI, it will eat your job for now and forever! And, wait till we embody them in robots. Whoo-boy! You won't even be able to drive a truck or plumb pipes for a living! Ain't that great?
Voter: What? No! That sounds terrible!
AI CEO (thinking): Why can't I get to these schmucks?
It's the economy stupid. If you don't offer material improvement with UBI instead of selfishly flexing your utopian visions of Star Trek robes and replicators and you and only you living for a thousand years, don't be surprised if voters don't give you what you want politically.
Also it’s going to end the world every time Sam or Dario has to fundraiser.
[dead]
Right - so instead of getting mad at datacenters, how about getting out of the way of building more powerplants?
Electricity is the ultimate fungible resource. You can convert electricity into food, housing, medicine, video games, football games (either sort), transportation, etc.
The more electricity we produce, the more broadly prosperous we will be.
It's not a question of needing more electricity - we don't need any electricity at all. We got by without it for 100k years until just the last few. But still, the more we have, the better all our lives will be.
It doesn't seem like the people most opposed to AI are the people opposing more energy. Wasn't it MAGA that was fighting solar and off shore wind?
Because rushed out power plants have a high chance of going wrong?
> Right - so instead of getting mad at datacenters, how about getting out of the way of building more powerplants?
Grid upgrades take years at the best. Utilities are already doing what they can, with re-conductoring existing power lines, adding more substations, etc.
To add to that: Datacenters are not waiting for those grid upgrades, or at least they are not planning to. They're planning to add onsite generation, which will be more noisy and more polluting per kWh than real power plants would be.
You know, except for that whole climate change thing. The fastest power to spool back online is older coal, oil, and gas plants.
Then make those uneconomical, and reap the benefits of a slower (but still massive) rampup of clean power.
It's a real problem because we were sold a post industrial dream which could only happen if the hardest computation anyone would ever have to do is sending an http packet.
Electricity is destiny, if you can't produce it you will be a puppet of those who can. See Germany.
amazing a comment like this gets downvoted, must be nice looking down from the ivory tower :)
This insufferable contempt and disdain you're displaying toward the views and concerns of the population is what riled them up against tech and AI.
I feel for the people and their concerns, but until about 6 months ago the average person neither knew nor cared what a datacenter was, and probably still would not, were it not for some well-edited TikToks.
Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work? If you believe something should change, then you attempt to create a well crafted message to convince people to agree with you.
Sure. I just strongly disagree with the message and I think “hysteria” is an appropriate word to describe it.
Yes, issues come and go. The datacenter discourse is to be understood as part of the broader discontent of the population against the tech elites, who are seen acting incredibly contemptful of democracy and constantly in bed with this corrupt administration. Turns out, complete disregard for the opinions of the masses and borderline autocratic decision-making lead to pushback.
And pretending that this opposition (that represents 70% of Americans, if polls are to be believed) is just a Chinese psyop is not helping your cause, because that is factually incorrect and extremely disrespectful to the people holding these views.
Noone said Chinese. Could’ve been some local influencers chasing clout/engagement.
Yes, keep saying "hysteria" and calling opinions other than yours "a psyop". That will definitely win over hearts and minds instead of catalyzing even more ferocious opposition.
People’s opinions are valid, and I wish tech CEOs were better at addressing them, but ultimately it is hysteria and it is a psyop, and the US will regret it.
Maybe the people building the data centers should actually do a decent job of winning people over to their side then. They could start by rejecting MAGA and using their money to help make its victims whole. Then maybe they could figure out a way to make AI actually good for your average person.
How is it hysteria if there is no conceivable way that this will improve the material conditions of the people? If there is money to be made it will be funneled up, not down.
If you disagree that AI has “no conceivable way” to make people’s lives better, I guess we have much deeper fault lines to cross before we come to an understanding. But regardless of whether you or I are correct, I believe there is a lot of historical precedent thag societies that tend to not completely blanket ban entire industries tend to do better in the long run.
Eh, no. Datacenters are nothing like nuclear power plants.
The whole datacenter debacle highlighted that the whole tech industry is completely clueless and disconnected from regular people's lives. For example, look at this: https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/inside-lowell-markley-da...
Who the hell thought that this was a good idea? They could have built this DC just a few miles away in the middle of an empty field a few miles away and avoided all the problems.
The problem is the technology. I get very well paid in my tech job and can live forever on my FAANG salary, it’s not about the money:
There are 2 types of tasks people do throughout their life.
1. Creative tasks that provide self fulfillment
2. Uncreative monotonous menial tasks that degrade life.
AI takes 1 and ruins it to 2. The jury is out if it will fully take your job, I don’t know if that’ll happen but no one asked for automation of these creative tasks.
When you point these AI bros talk nonsense like cure cancer, Dyson sphere, China bla bla bla.
At the very least, models need to be post trained to stop outputting art, this will never happen though, meanwhile I will enjoy my half a mil a year, while all these AI bros lose their mind over graphs, loops or whatever nonsense they’re concocting up.
Nothing about this is inevitable, AI is as inevitable as nuclear, it seems to require even more capex than nuclear.