999
one less than 1000
No bio...
User ID: 4179
Full quote includes the phrase "I'd absolutely want it." Sorry, my mistake, had seen it earlier but forgot to select in the full quote.
So, nuclear power, at least according to these Gallup polls do seem to be getting more popular somewhat (37% for "more emphasis" in 2013, 46% in 2026). Using this one because it's the one that I can find on hand that has a timeseries
However, I do think their general point was related to the fact that datacenters have, according to the Heatmap News polls referenced in these graphics just have terrible polling (15% show any type of support, with strong support at 4%), compared to the energy polling they did which shows 44% support (with 21% being strong support)
Eh. So like I think people were mostly fine-ish with some sort of datacenter construction before the recent aggressive buildout, after all, people do use computers and internet and whatnot, but I only think it became a issue because of the rapid buildout and the cut corners thereof. They weren't loved (after all, who does like a big box) but they were tolerated
Yup, definitely missed that one. Thanks for linking, will have a read now
I think the water use/toxicity issue is the probably the least (but most visible) issue. De-electrification (or getting utility bills blown up) is ultimately, in my personal opinion, a much realistic concern (one that has materialized in many places already), just because the energy infrastructure isn't and might simply never be there and modern life effectively requires it
Regardless, both I think are seen as existential risks, whereas "China might beat us to an undefined goal" is ultimately unconvincing
Is anyone in the data center space running open-loop cooling
The majority of them are, currently, it seems
It looks like it is used some places, but we could easily be adding incentives or requirements for closed loop (air of ground source) cooling and battery-backed solar on rooftops instead of outright bans.
Even closed-loop systems do need to be replenished once in a while (although much much greater efficiency). The tradeoff there is power usage; closed loop systems use more.
Yeah. I think the current environment on this just is incredibly low trust so I think it'd do little to quell outrage. I do think the water usage thing is probably the most strawmanny of the worries, but it is probably the most visible
In drought-ridden areas where water consumption is already a very politically sensitive issue, datacenter water usage is admittedly not risk-free
Though the water issue itself is probably more fear than reality. There's also some other issues like the instance where wellwater was poisoned with nitrates in at least one instance which probably contributes to the fears though I can find like a grand total of like 2 stories on water contamination (this and the Morgan County story).
I think there'd be alleviation of a lot of these concerned if these cooling loops could use gray water or something similar, but as it stands there's too much stuff in them
There is no such cosmic justice, but I don't think it's going to get people to care when they feel threatened
The "China might overtake the US in AI development" risk is I think generally seen as either false, "so what," or "good, I like cheap stuff" whereas the current risks of be de-electrified or not having potable water is seen as existential
Plus all the AI haters
I think this is a big part of the backlash much more so than the NIMBY or a degrowth mindset. AI, despite the use, seems to be deeply unpopular among some, and the datacenters are probably just the physical manifestation of this
It seems genuine to me. It's been brewing for a few months now at least although probably a bit longer. OpenAI alleged that "China" was responsible for astroturfing and so that's where that story came from, but they're obviously a little biased. I'm sure there is some sort of responsibility there but that's probably more a consequence of it becoming an issue rather than starting it in the first place
I think a lot of it came from the fact that electricity bills in a lot of places are soaring, and, if you're working in an IT or office environment, the prices for computer parts like RAM and SSDs have in some cases quintipled at best
Long time listener, first time caller.
The war on AI datacenters (and normal ones as a bit of collateral damage) has been going on for a little while now, with those opposed fiercely fighting a lot of these projects pretty much wherever, whenever. It seems to be one of the most bipartisan issues facing the country right now and those who are pro-datacenter have been effectively politically slaughtered. As of a few days ago though, there seems to have been a small little flash point in the thing. I haven't really seen a thread here about this (although definitely could have missed one), and I'm actually a little surprised at it since I do think this is probably one of the biggest culture wars in America of this year. Anyway, curious thoughts on this, etc
From what I can tell, the flashpoint was yesterday when Axios reported (and later posted) a letter from the Ohio RNC to AI companies effectively calling being pro-datacenter politically radioactive. It kinda exploded at this point over Twitter and later Greg Abbott put a thing out about it yesterday after enacting a pause earlier this month. Basically the only one who didn't respond in a politically obvious way was Trump in a presser who was quoted as saying "if I were the mayor of a town or the governor of a state, and I had a chance to get a big plant in, an AI plant or a data center." I think this quote right here might be the worst strategic blunder since the Iran War. If I were the DNC, the clip would be on every station in the country
The reaction to these things are incredibly understandable. Their argument effectively goes "they use our water and electricity, provide a service to enhance the surveillance state and the interests of Big Tech, their proponents openly admit that they're gonna take your job, they bully communities, and they don't even pay taxes either, all the while poisoning the communities they leech on with pollution and noise." Personally, I'm honestly quite surprised that political radioactivity is the biggest thing that has happened so far. This seems to be an issue that unites people regardless of political party or affiliation...
Prescott a conservative, soft-spoken retired US Bank executive, and Sarah a vivacious and slightly distractible environmental advocate in a neon pink dress [...]
...probably because it's being correctly seen as a existential threat to people's lives and livelihoods. Polling against datacenter construction is incredibly poor, arguably being worse than coal or nuclear power plants (yeah I know, different surveys). I think this, if I were to pin a spark on this (there are many), it's the story of the Memphis xAI datacenter and also the lawsuits against Solon Township to effectively bully them into allowing the project. Communities, seeing what happened there and politically, have somewhat backtracked quite a bit where before they were much more open to it. Some of those that haven't are proactively enacting outright bans
If this culture war has one side, who is the other? Silicon Valley, billionaires, etc, seems to be the obvious answer here.
Both Altman and Amodei screwed up public perception big time, although I don't think it's 100% their fault. I imagine though this is basically because they're put in a double bind. If it isn't absolutely economy ending for every other company, the trillions pumped into their valuation will vaporize faster than you can say "AGI," but people tend to believe (correctly so) when someone threatens them (and have especially checkered pasts as both these guys do), that their threats are genuine, so when those PR puff pieces trickle down to the public at large.
The All In guys have tried to pin this on Amodei in particular, but I think some people just see that as them talking their book
They've tried to label the opposition as "China," but that clearly doesn't make much sense given that the problems are genuine. Cremieux has tried to take up the mantle on the issue, but I think people see his arguments are seen as specious and as relying on theoreticals that don't match observations on the ground, and this has I think backfired
Expect to see more bans and moratoriums happening across the country. Will be interesting to watch. Thoughts?
It's very easy to conceive of them as anti spam bot/impersonation/algorithm manipulation etc measures that you would deploy in order to help hide how fast (and in what ways) you detect them while still not allowing them to deteriorate the typical user experience. This is a pretty common sort of thing in video games for instance, ban waves of cheaters and hackers so they don't know what triggered it.
Notably in these cases, these users weren't banned, although they didn't show up on trending and in some cases search. I am aware that fighting the battle of "that's not what shadowbanning means" is probably a losing proposition but it annoyed me because many people who didn't realize the difference would conflate the two meanings of the term in discussions
- Prev
- Next

I think one of the big problems here is, ostensibly they might be, but people saw how these companies will threaten lawfare against small towns to effectively either a) force them to build it with effectively 0 restrictions and major tax abatements or b) drown them in legal fees and then do the first bit anyway. If you don't trust that the legal system is gonna work in your favor even if you are completely in the right, better to not get in that situation in the first place.
And if you're in a historically industrial area, there is probably still the memory of things like '08 where the companies just left for good, leaving the community to clean up the mess.
It's a very low trust system, and at least in my opinion, that distrust is more than earned.
More options
Context Copy link