This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In the UK we don't really have the same data centre showdowns described in this article, because the UK is already such a planning hellhole that no one would bother. Battles tend to be a lot smaller, focused on random businesses and housing developments. Nonetheless, so many of the NIMBY arguments seem to apply regardless of scale, one of the biggest of which is some kind of weird, communist, demand-management approach. "We don't need that here". "No one wants that". "Why are they building X instead of Y?"
Well, who the fuck cares about your market opinion, random local? Why are you the arbiter of supply and demand? Very obviously, somebody wants it; that's why people are putting their time and money down to build these things, whether it's a data centre or a bakery.
Now, I do accept that there is one difference when it comes to scale: data centres are so massive that a failed construction could leave you with a giant ruin somewhere, destroying local environments for nothing, whereas a small housing development or business won't have anywhere near the same impact. But even in this article, the first example is a proposal to replace the treasured, historic ... industrial wasteland. If something goes wrong there, you end up in exactly the same position!
It doesn't seem like any of the opponents in the substack even made a general "AI bubble" or similar argument (and that's putting aside the fact that data centres are the backbone of all modern infra, not just AI. There'd still be a ton of data centre construction if LLMs didn't exist). Their complaints are much more local, and concern about the companies doing the building is rooted in general distrust of corpos rather than anything AI specific.
I'm of course aware of the meme template you are invoking, but surely it applies to every instance of regulation. If there were no consenting market or investors for, say, selling cocaine, slaves, thalidomide or rat meat labelled as "beef", then banning those things would not be necessary. Conversely, the meme presumably is not funny in its original context to people who do think that Jesus/Allah/middle-aged ladies have a right to restrict the sexual dealings of consenting adults. While it may serve as a catchy package to convey the memester's value system on the topic, it rarely conveys any information or insight that would force someone else to change their judgement of a situation based on theirs.
It's not your main point, but I'm a Christian and I find that meme hilarious even as originally presented.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm going to make the same point I've just made to Bombadil: the point of the meme reference is that the third party in this case has zero relevance to the transaction. There is party A, wanting to buy AI services, and party B, wanting to sell AI services, and then party X, saying that the demand doesn't actually exist and this transaction isn't real.
I'm not trying to make a fully general counter-argument against regulation here, and the above example would be different if party X felt that the AI services being traded carried dangers or externalities for the wider public. But for the specific quotes above, no one is making that case, they are simply claiming that because they don't see a value in a product or service, the value must not exist.
The problem is party X is impacted - by electrical infrastructure upgrades whose costs are often spread throughout the community, by construction blocking traffic and making noise, by the eyesore on the way to work. There are concerns about water usage, which might not be based on facts but the impression a lot of party X has is that their water pressure could decrease and there's nothing they can do about it.
And in return they get.... maybe five janitorial jobs while the bulk of the "new jobs" go to people on the coasts. And a construction crew who will likely be lead by people out of town and will hire less-skilled local labor for two years before trapezing away with those paychecks.
And the taxes, how do they tax the data centers? If a data center in Ohio is responsible for a billion of dollars of sales made in California, who gets that tax money? What is the tax revenue of a data center after its built?
Maybe someone would be ok with these problems if they felt like they were contributing to a better future, if they thought everyone was benefiting in some way. But if they honestly believe these things are making everything worse, they are not worth the sacrifice.
Consider the possibility that people in small towns have a pride. Being the home of a GM factory was a source of positive identity and worth some sacrifices for the greater good. Being the home of a world-destroying machine mind is not.
Typically the local tax revenue is via property tax, to which the end usage of the datacenter is irrelevant. It's assessed based on the fair-market value of the land and improvements.
More options
Context Copy link
As per my earlier response, this is not a claim that externalities don't exist or that local communities have no right to regulate local construction. I am remarking on the argument that construction shouldn't proceed because there is no demand, and this lack of demand is unevidenced and based entirely on the vibes of the objector
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
People living in a city should get a say over what is build in the city though. Data centers impact the environment, housing prices, and electricity availability. These are all issues that markets and investors do not care about, but locals do. And I don't see why the concerns of investors should be more important than the concerns of the people whose lives they will impact.
Right, but that's a different argument. OliveTapenade quotes the article:
And adds his own opinion:
This isn't saying that cities can't regulate what gets built nearby, it's saying that regulation is needed because they don't believe that a market exists for building X. To use a much simpler example I've seen in the UK, it's saying that you can't open up a new chain coffee store in my town because there are already several coffee stores nearby and it's not needed - essentially saying I know you're willing to invest your own money in this business venture, but I've decided I know better than the markets.
This thing is not that useful to me. The citizen has no reason to believe a datacenter will impact his community positively. The dispute is not that the things won't be useful to the owner or shareholders. The issue is that it won't be useful to those asked to sacrifice for it.
I'm not disputing that, I'm saying that the argument is very often "This thing is not that useful to me, and therefore, to anyone"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link