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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You're part of the problem. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Grid upgrades take years at the best. Utilities are already doing what they can, with re-conductoring existing power lines, adding more substations, etc.
Electricity is destiny, if you can't produce it you will be a puppet of those who can. See Germany.
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.
So the conflict of interest will just escalate more and more.
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.
Idk maybe step 1 wasn't popular.
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.