The increase in the cost of power per kWh is a real problem for a lot of people.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

amazing a comment like this gets downvoted, must be nice looking down from the ivory tower :)

The protests are a good counterweight to the big tech AI propaganda. The former is a consequence of the latter.

Yes, keep saying "hysteria" and calling opinions other than yours "a psyop". That well 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.

I am not denying that there is immense utility and potential in AI, but the problem is the way the profits will be distributed. I'm not even necessarily saying that it's the right idea to fight it.

But if a new thing is coming in and demonstrably making your life worse in return for an abstract benefit, I understand deciding that it has no place near you.

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 I don't know a single person who doesn't absolutely despise 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.

[delayed]

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.

[delayed]

Noone said Chinese. Could’ve been some local influencers chasing clout/engagement.

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.

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 that arrested folks who spoke out against them. That’s the side to blame for escalation. And it’s 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.

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.

> people are mad. They are cutting off the nose to spite the face

This is an incredibly immature response to a real problem. Perhaps we need a changing of guard.

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.

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.