999
one less than 1000
No bio...
User ID: 4179
999
one less than 1000
1d ago
Also Anthropic and EA more broadly which has gotten a lot of mainstream attention recently with their proximity to all of the AI stuff, including from government tweets such as this one: https://x.com/DoWCTO/status/2099536442594582922
Probably culture war subthread worthy of its own.
999
one less than 1000
1d ago
I think probably the discussion surrounding this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/29/us/anthropic-claude-morals-ai.html
999
one less than 1000
5d ago
It's a meme stock. These equities are broadly detached from fundamentals and the market as a whole was down today for various interest rate related reasons.
999
one less than 1000
13d ago
OpenAI is, from the fact they recently got hacked and the fact they couldn't set up a proper sandbox, demonstrably not that good at information security
999
one less than 1000
13d ago
Obviously nation states are a threat, the problem is that CAs are not a very good way to mitigate that threat.
I am sure that the NSA can freely generate whatever certificates they want for at least half the CAs in my browser, but I am also assuming that they would prefer to just use the genuine private keys of the server instead. They can just hit google with a national security letter and make them cough up their keys. Much cleaner, because if you use a non-standard cert chain, there is always a chance your victim will publish it, which will embarrass your CAs.
Sure. I think it's probably a lot easier though for them to be like "give us access to the account belonging to this customer," and you probably get what you want. Ultimately, the trust is about whether your line is tampered, the guy on the other end can still lie on the internet. I do agree that a lot of the certs that come in by default shouldn't be trusted though, but I don't think letting governments be the steward of it encourages better outcomes
I do wish there was more popularity in the idea where a certain CA was only trusted for a certain portion of the internet and I wish there was a way in my browser to artificially impose constraints on what types of domains I trust with which certs (I may trust a certain CA to sign .cn domains but not bank.example.com).
If your point is that we should get rid of all the CAs other than Let's Encrypt, I think that this might actually be am improvement.
I do think it's good to have a little bit of diversity in the space, but yeah LE is really good. There's also the Google one as well if you want that and there's a couple of other free ones. Admittedly I was being a bit hyperbolic (probably some bank stuff still likes DigiCert)
Though I would also take crowdsourced validation. Let the website display its in-org certificate chain (with one of the root certs on top, if it must), but then let me query whatever third party I trust to see if that certificate is commonly used for that particular domain. (Though that would require judgement, which is not something one can expect of most internet users, sadly.)
You can do that today; the Certificate Transparency logs are public and basically are socially required, with strict time requirements. (CAs that don't get distrusted by the browser vendors.) Go to https://crt.sh/, search a domain, and you can find basically every cert it has had ever. You can even query the database directly by connecting to it over PostgreSQL.
999
one less than 1000
1mo ago
Dear website owner who (had to) pay every year for your ssl certificate: check how long your browsers root certificates stay valid. Feel scammed yet?)
Certificates are free nowadays from any issuer worth your trust. I get the backlash against forcing HTTPS everywhere, but it is a genuine improvement over "walk into a coffee shop and pwn people's bank accounts/social media/email with them have no recourse or knowledge"
The benefit of the CA model is that it can assume that nation-states are, they themselves, a threat, and moreso than the browser developers. Sure you might not trust the preloaded list of certs, but you can always change that if you want (or ship your own browser with your own preloaded certs)
999
one less than 1000
1mo ago
The promises ought to be in enforceable contracts
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.
999
one less than 1000
1mo ago
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.
999
one less than 1000
1mo ago
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)
999
one less than 1000
1mo ago
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
999
one less than 1000
1mo ago
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
999
one less than 1000
1mo ago
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
999
one less than 1000
1mo ago
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
999
one less than 1000
1mo ago
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
999
one less than 1000
1mo ago
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?
999
one less than 1000
2mo ago
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
999
one less than 1000
2mo ago
The main difference I see is that this time, the AI companies are setting a red carpet for the regulators whereas the internet companies were a little bit more circumspect originally. I remember all the hand-wringing about the DMCA, but eventually the Facebooks and the Googles were all too happy to have their section 230 special status.
Section 230 is immensely important though, like it basically enables web forums to even reasonably exist without getting people in legal trouble. If anything, section 230 protects smaller providers a lot more than it does the Googles of the world.
999
one less than 1000
2mo ago
The original source was apparently from a post on 4chan's /b/ back in 2017. It was basically an instant copypasta and made it to reddit's /r/copypasta within like a few hours.
999
one less than 1000
6mo ago
As it turns out, you can bring stuff like laptops on planes and those can make pretty decent explosions and fires. In the interest of fairness, the TSA responded to xkcd's comic at the time but their argument of "if it looks like a laptop it's all good" isn't really exactly convincing to me. And these batteries are actually pretty dangerous even accidentally (UPS Airlines Flight 6, Air China CA139, etc, from a few months ago)
All of the replies here still are trying to rationalize the joke here usually in isolation without considering the broader context of what's been going on in the public sphere as of late. It's really hard to know when this all started, you could say it was after the datacenter stuff was reaching a fever pitch, after the (obvious at the time) lies about "pacing the frontier" from Anthropic and OpenAI, the hacks by OpenAI, etc. I'm not sure.
In any case, a lot of people started to question who this AI safety movement was (as one of the broad reasons for calling for regulation was to get a legally enforced competitive advantage) and basically saw the only people talking about it. There were a bunch of controversies over the last few weeks regarding certain conventions, the venues at which they were hosted, the people going on Xitter and writing articles about how trading human life for insect pain is net good. You have DoW directly saying that EA and all that it stands for is anti-American. And so on and so forth. This really wasn't "one day, for no reason at all, Scott Alexander woke up and made a joke and some Xitter people got mad." No, it's a series of basically serial and parallel controversies over a relatively short time period that have bubbled up such that people who are outside the general sphere are aware of them.
Yeah, people know it's a joke. It's generally seen as an incredibly poor taste joke though or at the very least one that fails to read the room.
These things escaped containment and before you know it, the general consensus, regardless of accuracy, among those are aware is that rationalists/EAs/SF cultists are "misanthropic doomer heretical sex pests" who are somehow at the upper echelons of these companies (Anthropic primarily, but OpenAI also) and who don't actually hold morally consistent values ("building the torment nexus" for profit while railing against it) and regularly flaunt social norms and laws (CFAA) with reckless abandon.
More options
Context Copy link