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 -
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...
...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?
I have not been following the issue closely, but FWIW to me there is kind of an astroturf vibe to this opposition to data centers.
Sadly, I've spoken to enough friends in real life to know that it isn't astroturfed. People are using all sorts of discredited arguments to argue against AI datacenters. It's all the worst parts of NIMBYism come to roost.
More options
Context Copy link
To me, it's not very surprising, and seems genuine. Let's ignore the problems with the physical data centers for a second. There's been much ink spilt on the issue of water, electricity, noise, and general quality of life for the people who actually need to live next to these AI data centers. I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that some of those concerns are legitimate and some are not. The backlash against data centers seems to me to be an indictment on AI as a whole and the view of the future that has been, let's be honest, forced on us.
The average person's experience with AI is slightly positive at best. Maybe they use it as another, better search engine (with how trash Google has become, this is probably the most prevalent use of AI. Maybe they see some vaguely amusing AI slop on social media. Unfortunately, however, a lot of the average person's experience with AI is extremely disruptive and literally life ruining in some cases. It's not hard to find people who had their parents, grandparents, or friends completely one shot by AI on Facebook or companies replacing all customer service with AI agents, making it impossible to get any help. And don't even get me started on AI and its consequences on the job market. As if mass AI layoffs weren't enough, if you're searching for a job, you're now getting your resume reviewed by AI, interviewed by AI, and rejected by AI all before a human has ever seen your resume. People are resorting to using AI to apply to hundreds of jobs a day to have a chance. And when you get a job, you're being forced to use AI as a part of company policy. I'm not saying that a small slice of the population didn't make great productivity gains with the help of AI. I am saying, however, that these gains are simply not felt by the average AI user, let alone person.
All of that is to say nothing of the actual people who are responsible for AI. Everything I said before might even be acceptable if the people who ostensibly are responsible for selling AI to the public even vaguely resembled humans. Instead they loudly and often brag about how many jobs they've eliminated, how everyone's current way of life will be completely upended, and how everyone who does not enthusiastically support this is a luddite and should be left behind to rot as a permanent underclass. And by the way, the AI layoffs will continue. And not only that, they will actually accelerate. And actually we think it's a good thing that you're being rejected by AI hiring managers. And also, do you have any more of those subsidies that lets us build more of these?
Is it really, truly a surprise, then, that the average person is against anything and everything that supports AI?
More options
Context Copy link
This seems like normal low-IQ people ranting and raving about hot topics. But this time, thé people on the other side are weird ultra-wealthy lizards with business interests that regularly get accused of being slightly evil by both sides of the aisle.
More options
Context Copy link
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
It's been brewing for like 1.5 decades, I'd say this recent rapid buildout just made it topical and spread awareness.
More options
Context Copy link
You're probably not going to get much buy in to that stance here. Most of the readership skews urban, wealthy, and technocratic. They don't view the negative externalities as real problems.
The Chinese interference theory is a convenient way to avoid having to confront those externalities without asking why nobody's crying out to have Fort Mason Park paved over and converted to a data center using "temporary" gas turbines for power.
It's very similar to the "Russian election interference" narrative from 2016. Sure, you can probably dig and find something, but Sexy Bernie coloring books do not a complete explanation make.
People just call it Fort Mason. Also, San Francisco already has multiple data centers in city limits, on the east side.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm sure there's some of that, but NIMBY types and degrowth types don't need much motivation to oppose them as is. 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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's interesting that the Motte is considered significant enough to run the op on, too.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link