A lot of people here are portraying the opposition to data centers as being uneducated hypocrites who are against anything getting built. When you look at what the opposition are saying, they generally know what they are talking about. Here's Abdul El-Sayed (new Michigan senator) talking about his ideas for regulating the AI industry: https://youtu.be/YX44XDt0gXI?t=182 . For datacenters specifically, he isn't against them being built but thinks that there need to be rules in place so the communities that they're being built in actually benefit from them. He views moratoriums as something that localities and states should be doing until those rules are in place federally. The rules he suggests are:
- There must be community benefits agreements negotiated transparently with the local community
- Any new datacenters being built cannot raise utility rates
- Some of the revenue generated by the datacenter must be set aside to improve power reliability
- Datacenters must not touch our waterways at all
- Datacenters must be built using union labor
A lot of the communities that had datacenters built in them ended up getting steamrolled in negotiations by the tech companies because you had the local government (in small towns, this is people who work part time making a few thousand dollars per year) negotiating a deal with the Google/xAI/Oracle/etc corporate lawyers. I think it makes sense to say that the buildout should be paused until fairer terms can be worked out on a national level, rather than letting this continue to happen.
Not only steamrolled but, and at the fault of local BOS, hand-tied under NDAs. Nothing will give voters a worse distrust of leadership than being willingly gagged. Oh and in some cases, for personal gain: https://www.richmonder.org/a-chesterfield-employee-who-helpe...
Yea, a lot of the opposition is around these deals being cut at 3:00 in the morning in secret meetings in a shady, smoke-filled room, deliberately avoiding public input and scrutiny. Even if it's not grift and corruption, it certainly looks like grift and corruption.
>>“- There must be community benefits agreements negotiated transparently with the local community
- Any new datacenters being built cannot raise utility rates
- Some of the revenue generated by the datacenter must be set aside to improve power reliability
- Datacenters must not touch our waterways at all
- Datacenters must be built using union labor”
Deal. This sounds like a great list. I would add, “no property tax breaks”.
Just get the state to pass this as a law and set appropriate enforcement mechanisms and then just let data centers go ham if they meet this criteria?
No more “per community meetings” and municipal haggling (see: corrupting) local governments. Buy the land build the data centers. The municipality can figure out the exact benefits that works for that community from the giant tax coffers.
It was recently announced that Meta was building a DC about 75km from my city that is going to be using ~1.8GW of power.
What I'd like to see from my provincial government is the leadership and foresight to regulate that development in such a way that the waste energy from this DC is used to heat greenhouses in our very cold winters.
That could go a long way to bootstrapping a local greenhouse industry and to improving regional food sovereignty.
That's the kind of stuff that government should be doing. They stand at the intersection between all the various stakeholders and they handle the big levers that can force / coordinate them into doing things that increase value and quality of life for the people that elected them.
Florida passed a state law that has standards are somewhat close to what you wrote, yet communities down here still voted to ban datacenter construction.
Why must this be done at the federal(I presume what you mean when you say national) level? Seems to me, this should be up to the local community, if they want a datacenter or not.
But I am in general for decentralisation and democracy.
> A lot of the communities that had datacenters built in them ended up getting steamrolled in negotiations by the tech companies because you had the local government (in small towns, this is people who work part time making a few thousand dollars per year) negotiating a deal with the Google/xAI/Oracle/etc corporate lawyers.
I think the immediately preceding sentence pretty clearly laid out their rational. (Not saying I agree or disagree, just that I think your question was already answered).
Add effective enforcement with harsh penalties for "ask for forgiveness rather than permission" behavior. We've been on this ride too many times not to know what to expect.
I worked for a lab that was building a new computer room and it spent about a year in the permitting process with the local town council before getting approved. Most of the focus in that process was on the geothermal cooling system.
I don't think people are a ignorant or provincial as people here are suggesting.
Broadly, the people in areas with datacenters understand that AI is leading to a loss of control and concentration in power and money. A lot of people in these rural areas have been on the receiving end of this sort of screw job for generations. Their skepticism is earned, and the way our field has tried to ram these projects through with what I will try to gently call a "ship it" ethos has not helped.
This is probably a healthy reset for the field overall, and for the country. A number of the leadership of these companies have seemed to develop manifest destiny or messiah complexes that are offputting to most people. Polling data supports this.
It's a local problem., but it's not just a local problem.
Seeing multiple data centers sprouting up all over rural Ohio on a recent drive across the state was quite jarring. All of a sudden there are like ten massive cranes and a dozen huge turbines sitting in the middle of a field of corn and soy. It may me understand a lot better why people in the area hate them.
I like a lot of what El-Sayed has said about AI, but he's kind of disingenuous here. If you add enough rules like that, nothing's ever going to get built.
I think he's perfectly fine with you (and everyone else with a functioning brain) to take the very simple logical leap to infer that if they can't meet the list of requirements for building, then they should not build.
But you want him to come out and say something that he doesn't believe (and has personally contradicted): that he's opposed to data centers as a point of principle, because you're ideologically convinced that that is his viewpoint, because to you that's the only reason someone would put up any type of roadblock to data center build-outs.
These are not different from normal nimbyism. Me demanding that before any housing can be built near me it should benefit ME, all is potential negatives like traffic are mitigated, it must be built extra expensively, etc. Is just bog standard nimbyism and why housing is not getting built.
Perhaps it's just you, because the votes say otherwise. Housing NIMBYism is people who already have homes preventing new ones from being built, for their own benefit (Price increases on existing stock). That's not what's happening with data centers.
Yes, I want the datacenter just not in my backyard. Of all buildings, a datacenter is the most amenable to being put somewhere else. Maybe we can have it nearby if corp tells us what they're bringing to the table, but if the answer is nothing, go somewhere else or bring something better. What's the problem?
Any real estate regulation can be labeled as NIMBYism. You're invoking it here as a thought-terminating cliché.
Building without considering consequences at all, or building the way that capital demands, is how you end up with urban communities getting obliterated by highways[1], or rural communities getting decimated by industrial plants[2], or indigenous communities getting destroyed by military testing[3], or indigenous people AND fragile ecosystems getting erased by military testing[4].
Not really. The regulation where everyone has to meet the same long term, unbiased standard on noise, emissions whatever, while it can also be excessive, is different from the regulation where to make use of your private property you have to follow the whims of whoever has the power. Why would data centers need to be built using union labor when there's no such requirement for anything else? In the old days you needed to placate the whims of a king to be granted the right to use your own property, now you need to placate a union boss or some design review bureaucrat.
Yes, I'm a NIMBY. Someone want to build more houses, maybe that's good, but the roads need to be scaled up to match. Want to build a datacenter, ok but what's in it for me? The people long-term invested in a town are the ones who should be making decisions on how to develop it, not someone coming in from the outside to make a buck.
There's a balance too. The way to increase my home value is not to say no to absolutely everything.
> isn't against them being built but thinks that there need to be rules in place so the communities that they're being built in actually benefit from them
More "Not in any backyard until deal structures are guaranteed to respect the gross asymmetry of participants, but at that point reasonable so let's establish those structure guarantees with federal leverage sooner than later"
In other words, welcome to NIABUDSAGTTYGAOP, BATPESLETSGWFLSTL
But I get how that's not as fun to engage with for pithy internet rhetoric.
“Nono, I’m not NIMBY, I just want to set up some goalposts that I can arbitrarily move whenever I want. I just want veto power. Trust me, I’ll use it responsibly”
Yes this is exactly what NIMBYs who want to prevent new housing from existing say. And preventing people in a community from having a day in what gets built in their neighborhoods is precislely what state level YIMBY laws in California are intended to do.
> Any new datacenters being built cannot raise utility rates
DCs do not raise utility rates, utility companies raise rates in response to demand, but aside from that nitpick there is a bigger problem here. If the DC is not connected to the grid then the DC is going to generate power on its own, using inefficient (due to the small scale) and polluting systems (e.g. turbine generators).
If you actually want to address the utility bill impacts of DCs, you should require them to pay the local community. We have a similar arrangement for oil drilling -- to avoid a situation where companies pile onto oil fields and put derricks up on every property, we instead have the companies pay people who own the land above the oil being extracted and that is why Beverly Hills is such a wealthy neighborhood. Give money to the local community in proportion to the electricity consumed by the data center.
Frankly we should require DCs to pay even more when they are not attached to the grid to discourage pollution.
> Datacenters must not touch our waterways at all
...at all? Not even with a connection to the local water utility? That would mean there cannot even be a toilet in the building.
Data centers are industrial operations and should be treated as such -- I do not know of any other industry where this kind of absolute isolation from the local community is being called for, and there are plenty of concerns about industrial water use beyond data centers.
> utility companies raise rates in response to demand,
That's less than a half truth.
Here's the full version:
Utility companies raise rates in order to build new power plants for the sole use and benefit of a single big biz customer who demands that all pay for the new plants his big biz needs.
This is like saying "tech employees don't raise rents, landlords raise rents in response to tech employees offering their fat salaries" - it's a distinction without a difference and the end result is what people object to.
OK, let's take that example. It is true -- landlords are responsible for raising rents, and they do so in response to demand for housing. In some places, landlords are not allowed to arbitrarily raise rents -- for example, by limiting rent increases to follow the CPI. In theory you could regulate utility rates to insulate communities from the impact of DCs and other industrial operations.
Like I said, it is a nitpick and there are bigger problems here.
This reminds me of the short-form video (Daily Show?) I saw recently of a man in a red hat insisting that the government should facilitate union workers increasingly gaining ownership of the companies and corporations they work for.
You know, like workers seizing the means of production.
But then in the next breath condemning the concept of socialism. But probably because JD Vance himself has redefined socialism to mean forcing girls to play with boys in sports.
Kevin Oleary's data center is going to be built one hour from my town. A lot of people here seem upset about it but when I talk to them I can't get a single good reason to oppose the data center. Here's what I hear and my response:
"It'll use too much water." - It's going to use less water than the farm that used to run on this land. The county is gaining water from this.
"Our electrical bills will go up" - They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid
"Noise" - It's an hour away from any structure on a stinky swamp north of the Salt Lake
"Wildlife refuge" - This bird refuge is in Brigham City. The data center will be on the opposite end of the county. Some people seem to think it's right next door.
My concern is I don't want tax payers left holding the bag if this falls apart but it seems like, at least with this DC, that that's not the case. This is going to bring a LOT of money to my county which sorely needs it and a LOT of people to my dying rural town.
I really just have to come to the conclusion that we have a tiktok informed voting block here. I've had people ask me if I'm worried that the new data center will spy on me. What?
Edit: I checked. This is going to use 162 million less gallons per year than the farm.
> They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid
Generating their own electricity how? I would be pissed if I got one of these xAI power turbines near my area [1]. And even if they weren't loud, gas plants are environmentally bad.
> They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid
Electricity prices will go up! The data centers won't keep generate their own electricity if they aren't forced to. They will just take electricity from the grid when it's cheaper than generating, and will start generating only when the costs of generating are lower.
They're using natural gas to generate electricity. Everyone involved has said that it won't pull power from the grid. But if it does that's a good thing. That means we'll need to expand our grid. We're currently building a nuclear reactor in my county as well. This is economic growth and a good thing. My town is dying. Main street is depressing. There's a general lack of optimism in the people here.
This is exactly the argument people are worried about. "If prices go up, it's a good thing." For whom? Residents will have to pay this for a decade before a nuclear reactor comes online.
That's a reductive take in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. Of course people will resist commercial developments that'll increase the cost of one of the most essential resources everyone uses day-to-day for the sake of shareholder value.
> That's a reductive take in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. Of course people will resist commercial developments that'll increase the cost of one of the most essential resources everyone uses day-to-day
Your argument conveniently ignores that electricity is tiny fraction of the average American's budget, which is far more heavily weighted toward housing, gas, and groceries. This argument is extremely tenuous.
> for the sake of shareholder value
This is emotionally manipulative and without substance. Data centers are being built because there's demand for them from people who want to use AI, like me. These data centers drive down the cost of AI, which is valuable to me, and to society. The fact that it also happens to increase "shareholder value" is irrelevant.
> Your argument conveniently ignores that electricity is tiny fraction
You assume people's psychological resistance to increased cost is entirely based on the proportional impact of those cost increases. Yes, housing/gas/groceries are much larger portions of the increase in cost, but datacenters are much more visible than poor foreign policy or starting new conflicts with overseas energy producers. Also, electricity traditionally has much less cost variation than gas/housing/groceries.
> This is emotionally manipulative and without substance. Data centers are being built because there's demand for them from people who want to use AI, like me.
At my company's internal conference we had a rep from one of our partners come speak, and he emphasized that a significant value-add of our company's relationship to our partners is that we're much more tech-forward. he went on to say "Execs in [partner industry] don't know what AI is or what it does, but they know that they want it."
We're seeing AI features being bolted into every application under the sun, whether it actually adds functionality or not. I think you bear a significant burden of proof to the claim that the demand for datacenters is in turn driven by consumer demand for AI, and company boards losing their minds over what they think AI can do and demanding their R&D divisions sink millions of dollars into AI spend to try and capitalize on their dreams.
I'm reminded of Bitcoin: for a hot minute every startup was talking about blockchain and GPUs were getting snapped up by miners left and right because of what people imagined the value could be. That's what I'm getting at when I say "shareholder value:" these developments seem to be less about what value a company is _actually_ producing (& thus the inherent cost-of-goods-sold demand), and more about the _possibility_ of what value a company _could_ produce.
> You assume people's psychological resistance to increased cost is entirely based on the proportional impact of those cost increases. Yes, housing/gas/groceries are much larger portions of the increase in cost, but datacenters are much more visible than poor foreign policy or starting new conflicts with overseas energy producers. Also, electricity traditionally has much less cost variation than gas/housing/groceries.
This is a good point. I see that I misunderstood your original argument - I thought you were claiming that the increase was going to be financially meaningful, rather than what you actually said, which was the perception of and response to the increase. My apologies. Thank you for your thoughtful response!
> Data centers are being built because there's demand for them from people who want to use AI, like me
No they aren't
They're being built so shareholders can profit off of people like you. The fact that you benefit from it does not actually factor in any way aside from the fact that you will pay them for that benefit
They aren't benevolently trying to help you out, they just want your money.
The fact that you want AI and think it will help you and society is actually what is irrelevant. If they weren't confident it would make them money it would not be built no matter how beneficial it would be.
>> Data centers are being built because there's demand for them from people who want to use AI, like me
> No they aren't
You literally said they are building data centers to cater to demand later on in your own comment:
> If they weren't confident it would make them money it would not be built
There you go. Your own point debunked by your own words.
> They aren't benevolently trying to help you out
I didn't say anything about the owners building stuff out of charity or benevolence. Are you responding to the wrong comment? Yours is more-or-less irrelevant to mine in addition to being self-contradictory.
Please own up to the fact that you self-contradicted yourself in your own comment by first claiming that "No they aren't" and then "If they weren't confident it would make them money it would not be built".
> It's not irrelevant. It is the primary reason they are being built
...and without any implications, that fact is irrelevant. Do you understand what relevance means? It means that there's meaning, implication. You haven't given a single follow-on implication from that hypothesis that actually matters to the discussion.
> Your understanding about the cause and effect around why data centers are being built is completely backwards
No, this is just factually false.
Fact: for datacenters, without market demand, without a buyer, shareholder value cannot possibly be generated.
So, first there is a market, and then companies act on it to generate shareholder value.
You're living in a world detached from reality where "shareholder value" exists as its own separate entity that can generate market demand.
You need to take a high-school level economics course so that you don't make objectively incorrect statements like this.
If that new economic activity has lopsided benefits and will never pay off for those negatively impacted by those price increases, then yeah shut it down or regulate it so that the benefits are shared equally by all. Shorter version, if the new economic activity is exploitive of people and their communities, then shut it down hard.
If I get a vote about new economic activity, and it makes me personally poorer, I'm going to need a very good argument as to why I should permit it. Or, you know, pay me.
If the data centers hadn't been _quite_ so hostile to absolutely all their critics and instead had simply offered to pay for some local schools or libraries or something, at like 5% of the cost of the data center, this would have gone differently.
Generally, economic activity is supposed to raise living standards. AI promisses to a.) speed up climate change b.) facilitate surveillance and authoritarian tech bros b.) make people obsolete and unemployable c.) kill us all because reasons.
Datacenter is not bringing more economic activity to the area.
If the data center which requires the grid improvements is fully paying for the upgrades, I'm OK with it. OTOH, if they expect to fob off the cost of the otherwise-optional upgrade on the rest of the ratepayers, Fck-NO!
And for those who say "but it benefits the rest of the ratepayers, so they should pay too", NO! If you (person or corp) come in and demand we change something, you should be a net benefit for everyone, not just yourself.
Be a good citizen and help everyone, and you'll find support. Don't, and find people see you as an asshat and you'll find opposition.
If we brought them up a decade earlier we wouldn’t have had to wait. Instead, we were told “renewables can replace fossil fuels”, despite us lacking the battery capacity to make them viable for the grid. Nuclear is a direct replacement for fossil fuels with better energy generation and actual on-demand capabilities, plus it’s far safer than fossil fuel-backed media will admit. We could have been using both and have completely cut down on emissions while also increasing the lifetime of our nuclear stores.
For that little old retired lady who is on a fixed income, of course! It means she'll have to sell that cute little house of hers and let someone turn it into an AirBnB and make some actual money from it.
Did you know that global average temperatures are the highest they've been in 125,000 years, and temperatures are rising more than 20x faster than natural rates of global warming. Also the oceans are 30% more acidic, and the world's land ice is melting at a rate of like 660 billion tons per year. There's probably around 7% more water vapor in the atmosphere because warmer air holds more moisture and warmer water evaporates more quickly. Fire seasons are getting longer and more intense. Etc etc
Did you know that US produces 30% less carbon than it did in 2004? Even when adjusted for trade, carbon emissions continue to trend down since the early 2000s (absolute terms, not even per capita)
Ok that's nice, but it's not enough and now you want to add a bunch of natural gas power plants? Is that going to increase or decrease geenhouse gas emissions?
Are you arguing we did good so now we can cheat a little bit and have some ice cream? Like someone falling off the wagon on their diet.
Imagine we focused this anti-DC energy on things that actually have material impacts, like meat consumption and air conditioning.
I'd imagine it's something like each American eating half as many cheeseburgers a year would offset all current and projected emissions from DC energy usage.
...so building that nuclear reactor would be a good thing since it will emit far less carbon than those natural gas generators (not to mention all the other pollution that nuclear plants do not emit). Hook the DC up to the grid and expand nuclear power to simultaneously accommodate the load and decommission fossil fuel plants. Wins all around.
Slow to build, capital intensive. I would have loved a large build out of nuclear 30 years ago. Even now if you get one online more power to you. I just don't see it ever being a major part of the solution now. It's time came and went.
You go first sacrifice yourself, the finances of your family and your town, in order to save the global environment, to set an example, and we'll start to follow your lead when we'll see that your sacrifice has improved the global environment.
It's always convenient for you when someone else has to make sacrifices to their job security, housing, financial future, and comfort in order to save the environment, when you get to enjoy all the perks of their sacrifice, without needing to make any equivalent sacrifices yourself.
Sorry, your small town getting a short stint of construction work followed by maybe 20 sysadmins, is not worth the pollution that DC will pump.
I commute by rail to the tune of ~6000 miles a year. How long would it take for those gas turbines to make those greenhouse savings worth it?
Some napkin math, lets say a conservative 50MW/day? half what the XAI Colossus DC uses. So they'd be generating about 2MWh running 24/7.
Those gas turbines spit out ~700kg of CO2 per MWh.
My car would emit about 5 tonnes of CO2 over about 15k miles(2L hatchback).
The drive is far less direct than the train, so lets call it approximately 10k miles in commuting.
In a day, one of those gas turbines would produce about 16.8 metric tons of CO2. Over 3x what my car would produce. In a day. It takes me all year to save 4ish metric tons of CO2 from my personal carbon emissions.
Yeah, so screw your small town and screw the datacenter. We all share this world. Your small town isn't worth the damage.
Seems like this can go both ways. You should volunteer to have a bank of loud, polluting turbines from obsolete passenger jets running 24/7 next to your home so Meta can serve GenAI ads with 5% lower latency.
Only if you subscribe to the logic that somehow I support datacenters built in peoples' back yards, which I never claimed, but you made up. If you make stuff up, you can make any argument you want.
> But if it does that's a good thing. That means we'll need to expand our grid.
Your other points are generally very well-thought-out, but this one is not.
Grid expansions take years. Building new nuclear power plants takes decades. And there's "slack" in the sense that utility prices can raise substantially before there's actually impetus to start planning a grid expansion, and then you still have to wait years for construction to finish.
And the party that takes the hit for those sustained elevated electricity prices is local residents, who in general have far less capital and are disproportionally hurt by it relative to the owns of the data centers.
You can make the argument that the electricity price increases are going to be lower than most people think and wouldn't meaningfully hurt the average local resident, but that's a separate argument. I don't buy that "if it pulls power from the grid that's a good thing" is valid.
If there isn't enough power to meet demand, then build out the grid first, or tax datacenter power consumption so that the inflection pain-point before grid capacity expands is less harmful to the residents.
If building a gas turbine for the data center can be done quickly, then building a gas turbine to expand grid capacity can be done just as quickly. (Barring any poorly thought out, unprincipled regulations that would affect one but not the other.)
It sounds like your town needs a monorail! Well, sir, there's nothing on earth like a genuine, bona fide, electrified, six-car monorail!
> They're using natural gas to generate electricity. Everyone involved has said that it won't pull power from the grid. But if it does that's a good thing. That means we'll need to expand our grid.
Everyone involved will lie in exchange for money. Put it in writing, make it legally binding, and then maybe I would believe them. They haven't done that, have they? Also, who do you think pays for expanding your grid?
> They're using natural gas to generate electricity.
Yep. And that will decrease air quality locally, which is especially bad for people with asthma or other sensitivities. And increases greenhouse gases globally. And this natural gas generator will probably be less efficient than a normal power plant.
> This is economic growth and a good thing.
Not much. Sure, there will be some construction jobs while it is being built, but after that, there won't be many jobs for the DC. And there is a good chance the jobs that will exist won't go to local residents. And the owners of the DC aren't going to be buying much if anything from the local community.
Using electricity is not breaking anything. "If I sell all my widgets, it's actually a good thing because I'll have to hire more people and manufacture more widgets" is entirely coherent.
Using electricity to the point that the grid cannot accommodate it is indeed breaking something that was working before, and the data center folks are surely not going to be the only ones paying for the infrastructure improvements needed to accommodate it.
It'd be like your widget maker harvesting wood for their widgets from public land and exhausting it so the public is left without this resource, then expecting the public to pay to arrange for more wood to be grown to replace the wood they used up.
Ooo, this is exciting, I so rarely get to be the random dumbass crawling out of the woodwork to provide a statistically-unlikely counterexample to an otherwise sound point!
I've been really enjoying eating soybeans. Absurdly good source of protein (yes, even for a bean), dirt cheap, decent source of fiber and a bunch of minerals, and pretty easy to just drop in a pressure cooker and eat however you like once it comes out.
Can't say I eat a lot of field corn or hay though.
> In Phase One, the county expects to receive $30 million in annual tax revenue. When fully built out, it could generate up to $108 million every year.
Data centers and almost all big companies don’t bring in any taxes. They negotiate zero property taxes for 30 years and have govts pay them money, because they say the half dozen people they employ are going to create a boom in the economy, they will buy houses, eat out, go to bars and this will create money for the local govt and property taxes.
The bucket of money is from the food truck, the only business that can be sustainable from a DC in the local area. The food truck is cash only, because they payment company now charges 50% because they are using AI to counter the spam and fraud from the other companies using AI.
And the data center will probably contribute to it dying faster. It'll produce only a handful of permanent local jobs, and the long term economic output will largely be for rich companies who won't be in your town. Even tax revenue will be tiny because of the exemptions they give it.
I was with you for a while here but you say nobody has an argument, then when someone presents one you say that actually that bad thing is a good thing because we'll react to the bad thing in a good way.
Gosh I sure am glad natural gas isn't a major fuel for grid-based generation, and under contention with residential heating. If that were the case, all that extra demand on a limited resource could drive prices up.
Now you could argue that billionaires, their investors and loan sharks should be allowed to buy up gas —perfectly legal— but it's actively screwing up people's lives.
A nearby town was doing pretty well. Then suddenly on a ton of visible land were built either RV/boat storage places or u-store places. The town feels aweful. Lots of those people able to are moving away because the town just feels bad now. That one move dramatically changed that towns direction/future forever.
Nuclear plants take over a decade to build. Data centers take a few months or years. New nuclear isn't going to power any data centers for a long, long time.
We are also building a nuclear power plant in the county. I'm excited for the growth that's going to bring. The other reply to this comment is uneducated. Nuclear is incredibly safe.
Maybe these companies can't prevent their own bots from escaping containment and breaching others' systems, but nuclear is surely easier -- and if there's any issue, superintelligence can mitigate the damage.
By the time any of these nuclear plants come online, The current deferred tech debt apocalypse will have played out. The market is efficient, but the efficiency is very weak. This is no exception.
These seem to be very specific to this project, and I doubt the majority of DC projects are like this one, an hour away with its own gas turbines to generate power and plenty of water available.
There also seems to be a Utah-specific bill from last year requiring large electricity users to pay the additional infrastructure and power-supply costs attributable to serving them rather than shifting those costs onto existing utility customers. This is also not the case everywhere DCs are being built.
I hear that a lot and I'm happy with my county for making sure we get a good deal out of this. I think a lot of people are informed by the few bad cases and think that all DCs are going to do this.
What about emissions from the generation of this power in salt lake valley? I believe a big argument was the valley with its inversions and geographical layout makes that pollution much worse for people who live in it.
This DC will be probably a 3 hour drive from the Salt Lake valley. We're building a nuclear power plant as well which is going to help with pollution.
Ultimately we can't stop Oleary from building this. It's his legal right to do what he wants with his property. I'm just happy we're getting such a good deal out of this.
> Ultimately we can't stop Oleary from building this. It's his legal right to do what he wants with his property.
When there is political will we can absolutely restrict people from doing things with their property. This is the entire premise of zoning laws among other regulations.
Whether the political will in your specific case has reached that point is another issue, but in many cases it seems to be approaching that level, especially where existing or proposed developments seem like they will directly impact the community that's already there.
The nuclear power plant will only help with pollution if it replaces existing fossil fuel use. If it just meets growing demand, pollution persists, and if growing demand is also filled by some fossil fuels then pollution increases, but just a bit slower because of the nuclear.
And there it is, folks. That is the key issue here - or at least, one of them. This new data center would pollute the environment, not to mention taking up land. The consideration, then, is whether the need for yet another data center justifies the added pollution and land use. That’s a value judgment, and it seems a lot of people say no, we don’t need more data centers, not even for “AI” - at least not enough to justify the added pollution.
You seem worried about your bills. But what about the effect on the environment? People on HN are supposed to be into engineering, so what about the trade offs? That’s the discussion to have.
I think the problem is that they don't control what happens next. The whole premise of AI data center buildouts is basically, "We think we can replace you with a robot so we'll be able to make even more money." So, even if _this data center in particular_ is okay, it's just like saying, "Well, we haven't driven over the cliff yet, so why are you complaining?"
Worse is that there's every evidence that AI is actually just a waste of money, but because there's so much investment in it, we'll all get to lose our jobs when it flops anyway. In the long-term it's just a lose/lose for everyone, and I think people are starting to figure that out. There's general mistrust, because the investors and the implementers are not trustworthy.
Thank you for being one of the few thoughtful responses. I do feel like people's opinions here are more a position on AI in general than this data center. I come from a stance of, "this is happening so we might as well benefit from it"
Well yes. If a car window gets broken in your town, well that's a simple crime. But if entire parking lots full of cars get their windows broken out that's a crime spree and resources need setup in dealing with it.
The issue with incremental problems and quantity problems is you can't point at a single one and go "here, here is the problem" (at least most of the time), you have to look at the entire problem and go "Shit, the paperclip maximizer building one paperclip isn't an issue, it's turning everything into paperclips that's the issue".
> "Our electrical bills will go up" - They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid
I don't buy this. they're generating electricity for free? the electricity generation comes from somewhere and it has a cost due to any resource used being finite; who is bearing that cost?
> This is going to bring a LOT of money to my county
in what ways, concretely, once the DC has been built (likely with outside contractors)? it doesn't take much to run one. typically DCs have large tax breaks and so don't actually bring in "a LOT of money to the local county" -- that's one of the problems that people are upset about; your DC might be an exception
I recall hearing an interview with a democratic politician (can't recall who), he had this thing: data centres need to BYONCE (Bring Your Own New Clean Energy). This seems pretty reasonable to me, if the data centres pay for any build-out of the grid required for their operation and bring online green energy, then they are fine. For the community, worst case they go bust and leave behind an improved grid. Off-grid gas generators are not BYONCE.
>data centres need to BYONCE (Bring Your Own New Clean Energy)
This is just another way of saying "no data centers can be built". The people who want to build data centers don't care what it's powered by, but they choose gas turbines over wind & solar because renewables can't handle the power demands.
That seems like an awfully defeatist attitude. With all the capital investment flowing into AI, there should be plenty of money to research and improve renewables (including fusion, fission, and battery technology) to meet the moment. After all, we need to move past fossil fuels and are already delayed on this path, so AI is a good catalyst (among many) to make progress.
On a meta-level, it's terrible politics for tech companies to roll out a technology that many don't see a need for and fear will take away their livelihood, while at the same time increasing CO2 emissions because renewables are too hard. Of course this course of action runs into massive opposition.
If the concern is non-localized resource or debt contention how is it different from any business?
I get generalized anxiety about pace of progress, but then let’s have that discussion rather than the canards about water or noise (which can be real in some cases, but taking GP at their word that’s not the case here).
This is the crux. It's different because data centers are illegally operating gas turbines. If CVS were playing loud music all night every night, nobody would doubt the ability of local law enforcement to shut it down. That is not true of (specifically) AI data centers, so it is rational to reject them until law enforcement gains the ability to police them.
Someone with more knowledge than my 2-minutes of googling should correct me, but...
It sounds like they'd be using the natural gas pipeline they would generate from starts in Opal, Wyoming (goes all the way to Oregon), and that the company behind it was in huge amounts of debt and filed Chapter 11 a few years ago.
So at a glance, I'm curious if making it profitable might be helpful to everyone, but would need someone with more info to chime in before I could say that.
> What do you want the county to do? We can't tell someone that it's illegal to use their land. This is happening. I'm happy that we're getting a good deal out of it.
You were asking for good reason against the data centers - I would imagine not being complicit in the detrimental effects caused by burning exorbitant amounts of fossils for electricity could be one of them.
The problem is that anyone who actually cares about such thing has like a dozen better venues to deal with it than data centers, yet they haven't in their lives thought of a single one.
What do you want the county to do? We can't tell someone that it's illegal to use their land. This is happening. I'm happy that we're getting a good deal out of it.
Then the DC should surely help fund it, and its existence should be dependent in its completion? Otherwise it will be like every other large scale development that offers this without being on the hook.
> They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid
By burning a ton of natural gas. Utah and Idaho both use a decent amount of natural gas for electricity generation. Less of that means that heating and electric costs go up. 9GW is a lot of fuel to burn, it will affect prices.
Otherwise, I generally agree with you. I'm familiar with the area.
The other reason I'd be against it is the air pollution that this will cause, but it won't really affect the surrounding towns as it's at a much lower elevation.
Tremonton. My understanding is they're getting their gas from a Wyoming company that just declared bankruptcy so good for them. The DC will help them out a lot. I look forward to the nuclear plant opening to help with the other concerns.
AFAIK, the reason for the position was to tap into a large national gas line that runs between Utah and Idaho. I'm not sure where the wyoming company would come into play unless they are purchasing the company and resuming extraction operations.
It's all a proxy vote on Big Tech. My town organized against a data center and this is what I saw. People are legitimately frustrated with the tech sector and feel generally powerless to do something about it. But they can vote down data centers in their home town...
I just made a comment about trade offs regarding pollution and land use. This is another good point. Everything is a trade off. If we use a lot of water to get food we need to survive, or even tasty food we enjoy, that’s worth it. But using up a lot of water for a data center, even if it’s less than a farm? That’s still a valid judgment. Lots of people clearly think that’s not worth it as a trade off.
The farm might not have made food and it might not have made food for human consumption, and even if it did make food it might not be the kind we need to survive. Remember that there are plenty of farms that exist to produce ethanol, HFCS, or inputs for beer/whiskey/etc. makers (which we do not actually need -- drinking is fun but hardly necessary for survival).
It's okay to just not want or like AI data centers. People don't have to hold a watertight argument against them to oppose them.
And with how secretive a lot of those behind these constructions have been, I think everyone is within their right to crank their cynicism towards data centers to the max.
What a surprise people don’t want massive structures used for shady purposes built by sociopaths, which may or may not use massive amount of power and resources, which may or may not be used to displace the entirety of the labor work force, or destroy what’s left of society to develop better algorithms. To also be built literally in unfathomablr quantities, in almost ever decent piece of land, using unfathomable amounts of money.
Seriously what’s peoples problem?
This is one of those situations where HN is too smart and thinks logic is the same as reality. Life exists outside of computers
The generation component will absolutely increase costs for communities. Those generators are run on Natural Gas which will draw massive demand on constrained pipelines, drastically increasing prices as demand out paces supply. Mark my words, your power costs as a regular consumer will be impacted by the increased demand of Natural Gas from these data centers
This is why it's important for government to be built on principles and law, not merely on popular opinion.
From a principled perspective, your neighbor shouldn't get a vote on what you do with your property, except to the extent that what you're doing directly infringes on their own property rights. (I emphasize directly. Noise is a valid complaint. "You're competing against me in the labor market." is not. "You're increasing demand for water in my area." is debatable.) Reducing the whole thing to a popular vote bypasses any such principles of freedom and instead institutes rule by the tyranny of the majority.
While I agree with where you're coming from in general, the surveillance industry has been happily coasting on downplaying and rejecting such principles for quite some time. Principles like freedom of speech, freedom to own things you purchase, privacy from ever-growing surveillance databases, freedom from unaccountable centralized permissions systems based on those surveillance databases, freedom to use computing technology that serves your own interests, freedom to partake in competitive markets rather than suffering monopolies. That general lack of principles (beyond merely centralized authoritarian control) is now coming home to roost, as people oppose these projects due to some vague sense of a lack of individual agency, but perhaps can't quite articulate why.
If their concerns had been acted on to begin with, most of the existing data centers would never have been built as people would be using computing technology under their own control rather than authoritarian-by-design "cloud" traps. So I have little sympathy for the surveillance industry now that the jig is nearly up.
This land he's building it on is cheap and I look forward to my county using it to advantage everyone. Why do you think you get a say on what happens in my home?
"Why do you think you get a say on what happens in my home?"
also you
* "A lot of people here seem upset about it but when I talk to them I can't get a single good reason to oppose the data center."
* "I really just have to come to the conclusion that we have a tiktok informed voting block here. I've had people ask me if I'm worried that the new data center will spy on me."
First, maybe they don't trust the company doing the development, or Kevin Oleary. What they are saying may or may not be true, but if they've made a habit of being casual with the truth or not following through on their word it doesn't really matter, does it?
That is tough, and it is why it's so important to maintain one's reputation.
Second, I seem to recall Oleary running around to news outlets telling anyone with a camera that the only reason that anyone would oppose the project was if they were somehow working with the PRC and trying to hurt America.
"Why do you think you get a say on what happens in my home?" is a very valid thing you said, and I actually respect it. If, instead, I said something like, "you are just tool of Elon Musk and AI has tricked you" it would probably feel insulting and you would be predisposed be hostile to me.
I think the way the project was done was disrespectful to other people in the area. Ultimately, laws and the voting process will handle it as it should be. If the project can be relied on to bring the benefits without causing the harm that you claim it will, it should be a slam dunk case.
Third, people are concerned about economic security and loss from AI and this specific project can't escape it. Our field has made its own bed there. These concern are valid and public statements by the involved CEOs and large scale layoffs can't be easily dismissed.
Because in Ontario, where his mansion is located, the government hasn't been approving such projects and is facing pressure not to. (https://globalnews.ca/news/12134754/ford-government-to-appro...) Even if the province approved, the lake community surrounding his mansion might not want one, for all the same reasons that the US voters in the source article don't want one.
Yes. Oleary bought the farm and there will be no farm there anymore. Using the grid would be good for us too. That's economic growth. There will be short term pain but the increased power use will lead to more jobs. We're already building a nuclear power plant.
Except, of course, that farms use unprocessed water for irrigation and datacenters use treated water for cooling. If the project has its own onsite water treatment, and water rights to the aquifer, then that might be fine, but the majority of these projects expect nearby municipal resources at a scale no farm ever has.
The details are definitely fuzzy when you talk to people. At the same time, the sentiment is fairly solid. People do not like AI. They do like food. A farm may use more water, but people want the output of the farm. They don't want the output of the data centers.
That being said, your part of Utah is definitely one of the places were the arguments break down. The actual food production there is minimal. I'm not sure exactly where you are at, but the northern side of the Salt Lake is fairly desolate, and getting moreso. If there was any place where people would be OK with it, you'd think that would be it.
The natural gas burning is a real concern, though. Utah has massive capacity for solar, and when looking down towards Millard county and south of there, geothermal energy. Setting this up as a natural gas fueled data center is a questionable strategy.
I get that they have a right to self determination but when did that start meaning others can’t have opinions about (perceived) short sightedness?
Am I allowed to think less of people who vote for stuff like mandatory prayer in schools, even if it is their community and their right to vote for what they want?
Since data centre projects are getting rammed through at breakneck speed despite very widespread opposition, it might look to others like your opinion is actually worth significantly more than theirs, simply because it happens to be shared by a handful of people with god tier money.
Thinking that people should decide if an infrastructure megaproject of dubious utility to their community should be built? Basically identical to thinking that people should decide what races live in their community and whether slavery is allowed.
The HN crashout over people suddenly disliking hyperscalers for some reason is something you could only witness here.
A community is not a sovereign nation. I know that eminent domain is considered by many (and historically rightly so) to be a dirty tool, but sometimes it really is in the benefit of the country and its economy to build things even if the people living in or around that area don't like it, especially if their only reason to resisting is "I don't like it".
> "Noise" - It's an hour away from any structure on a stinky swamp north of the Salt Lake
A major noise concern is the infrasound, which could be a problem even an hour away, since it travels further than regular noise
Not as bad as a center actually inside a community/neighbourhood, of course, but still, probably worth an actual impact study or the like and not just "it'll be fine"
Only valid point I've heard. We'll see what happens. All I'm saying is the DC is happening. We can't stop it. That'd be illegal. At least we're getting a good deal out of it.
What does the farm grow? Is it less valuable than what the data center will produce? Because you can't eat data. Utah is full of empty spaces that aren't being put to use (except maybe to set land speed records). Why not use those?
As a Coloradoan I'd be for it since it would save a little water from the Colorado River.
Also as a Coloradoan, if I was a climate denier, I'd be for it since the pollution from its natural gas generators would dissipate before it got to me. But in a state that "has the solar potential to provide all of the electricity used in the United States" doesn't it seem a little ridiculous to use natural gas?
That also helps ease the concerns about tax payers left holding the bag. What do you want to be left with, a few extra watts of solar or a bunch of natural gas generators that wouldn't really be useful?
If we're talking about the proposed data center near Brigham City, the area is not part of the Colorado River watershed, so the data center would affect other systems but not the Colorado River.
Haha cool. I am firmly against this data-center then. /s
The joke there is that states can't agree to a thing about that watershed and also don't seem to look beyond it when they are making rules. That apparently includes my own tunnel vision.
As a resident of the Colorado River watershed, our inability to negotiate a sustainable plan for the water is one strong reason I support a moratorium on any new water intensive infrastructure (which does not include all data center designs).
"They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid"
How are they generating that electricity though? If it's fossil fuels, then that's not very sustainable.
In my country the only real concern is electricity. The main reason we attract data centers is cheap, renewable electricity. Now, if the operators really built their own electricity generation infrastructure, the cost of existing electricity wouldn't matter much. So I suspect the plan is to mostly utilize existing capacity, which will drive prices higher, especially when it's not windy. It's not ordinary citizen that are worried, also companies in other energy-intensive industries have voiced their concern. And those industries tend to employ way more people than data centers ever will.
I think electricity needs of ordinary people and businesses that employ them should always come first. Data center operators should be required to build enough capacity to meet the increase in electricity demand. Otherwise it's just modern day colonialism, exploiting our resources without much local economic benefit.
Overall it is fine to say that this money will help the community but pretending that everything is going to be fine and others do not understand or that they are "tiktok informed voting block" is kind of low hit.
A farm produces food. It seems the residents actually understand the issue better.
> They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid
That's what they write on the brochure. A sensible stance is to be skeptical, given the [lack of] government regulations, gutting of EPA and big tech track record.
> "Noise"
Stinky swamps don't dampen the disruptive noise to nature. People [should] have a right to preserve the environment they live in.
> "Wildlife refuge"
I think this is the worst in the list. It doesn't have to be half inside the refuge to be destructive.
These all seem to be valid criticisms, without a practical response. Defending such monumentally impactful project needs stronger reasoning.
I don't live in BE county, but I live a little south of there. I'm also familiar with water allocation in Utah and you're correct that the data center will use less water than the farms it replaces. The water saved will stay in the underground instead of being pumped out, which is a good thing.
The only legitimate criticism I've seen of the data center is by the USU professor who calculated the heat output and determined it would raise the ambient temperature of the area by 5-9F (if my memory is correct). Also, while it will provide a net tax benefit, the data center is getting some tax breaks compared to any other run of the mill industrial project.
My concern is that so much of what is going on with data centers in general ( and from what I have read, this one also ) is everything that is kept private from the communities. People need to stop acting like the people are not part of the government and don't have a say. We may elect representation, but we are still in charge.
> This is going to bring a LOT of money to my county which sorely needs it and a LOT of people to my dying rural town.
Is it? I haven't looked at this project in particular but I've always heard these dc projects described as having pretty minimal impacts on tax revenue, jobs, etc. Some work for laborers during construction, then only a few full time employees. In addition, the value produced by the facility is not exposed to the community through any kind of tax mechanism. So I'm wondering how beneficial is it really going to be for the town?
I think that part of the problem might be that people don't trust corporations. Sure, they say all that, and that may even be the current plan, but is that how things will actually end up? Will there be consequences "unintended" consequences like polution? Will this be used as a stepping stone to something that is harmful?
Where the rich and powerful are involved, maybe it's better not to take the risk.
few points:
1. the water usage claim is reported only by developer. However, the developer omitted the fact that more water is also need to cool down the gas power plant. The project reported only water used by the DC directly.
2. so far nothing firm is committed regarding the DC will produce power on site. I would be careful with what developer claims vs. the reality.
3. isn't the problematic refuge around Locomotive Springs?
4. sure, if you live 1hour away from the DC you won't have issue with noise. But what about the communities closer to the DC?
5. the DC is planning to use as much power as the whole Utah, what will happen with the waste heat energy?
I think that a lot of people are more sophisticated than you think, and see data center buildouts as WeWork-style unsustainable growth spurred by speculative fervour rather than business fundamentals.
The water you cite is groundwater. It does not return in the same lifetime it is consumed at that rate. Gaining in this context simply means losing less than before. Weasel words are exactly why voters reject building AI.
This is classic Haidt's Righteous Mind stuff -- people vibe out a moral judgement, then generate rational explanations post-hoc. I'm much more interested in trying to figure out what the vibed judgement is.
> This is going to bring a LOT of money to my county
What money is it going to bring? 6 months of noisy construction work and then like.. half a dozen security guys on shifts and an engineer call out once a week?
The build out will take a couple years. I don't care about the noise. No one will hear it. It's an hour away from anything. Truly in the middle of nowhere. The DC will employee probably 100 high paid people. That money goes back into my town. The best benefit is going to be how much tax revenue we get from this DC. It's going to be the biggest tax generator this county has ever seen by a lot. We just had to raise property taxes by 37% to fund our schools. We need the money.
According to Oleary it will employ about 5000 permanent workers. According to the county it will employ 1-2k permanent workers. These are going to be rented out data centers to other companies who will staff their people here. There will need to be a large number of people managing the power generation. What resources do you have to say it won't employ 100 people?
These numbers are pretty inconsistent with other major data center rollouts. Furthermore, there are no repercussions (AFAIK) if the project fails to deliver that many permanent jobs. Oleary can say all he wants but unless there is some specific tax or legal measure that says "you must pay at least 2,000 FTE at a rate of $150k/year for at least 20 years" then it's basically impossible to guarantee these numbers. And frankly no data center developer would sign up for that liability knowing full well that humans at data center may well end up being automated (even more than they are today).
The massive Foxconn Wisconsin project promised 13,000 jobs. They ended up with 1/10th of that. That wasn't even a data center, it was intended to be manufacturing tangible goods. The outcome is the same, though, they over-promise and under-deliver.
The data centers employ a shit ton of people when they're built, but are sparsely staffed after construction. By your own admission, the data center is in the middle of nowhere next to a stinky swamp. Where are these employees going to live?
You have to understand that O'Leary will say that it will employ thousands of people to get this built, even if it is not true. Once it's built, what's the penalty for automating the thing and employing almost no one?
You want this because you see that your town is crumbling, and totally understand that. Small towns live and die by their ability to attract people from the outside, and nobody is coming to see a data center. The towns which survive are those which have farmer's markets on the weekend and can draw crowds. They have a reason for someone to come there, whether it's a theater, a brewery, or a historical site.
You've been promised a Field of Dreams, but that's all that it is.
I seriously doubt it needs 100 highly paid people. These will be automated to death. A few guys employed out of state, periodically visiting to swap out dead GPUs and staying in the nearest hotel. Maybe a bored HVAC engineer on site for maintenance.
I don't doubt you need the money. But the tax take on these places is always fictional.
If you look at 10-36MW DCs, the number of people on site is like 10, many are security and it's not a proportional relationship.
If you look at 10-36MW DCs, the number of people on site is like 10, many are security and it's not a proportional relationship.
I don't know much about this, but isn't Stratos ultimately planned to be 9GW, or 250x the size of your 36MW DC? Even if it doesn't scale proportionally, it's not hard to see it get to 100 people.
> The best benefit is going to be how much tax revenue we get from this DC
You're saying this all over the thread, but not one word about how much revenue and what percent of your county's budget that is. Some actual numbers please.
According to the county 30 million per year during the build out then 108 million at max capacity. Our budget last year was 76.3 million. This will be more money than we know what to do with.
"This will be more money than we know what to do with." That sounds like putting the cart before the horse. This is what leads to inflated city budgets, wasteful/risky projects and fraud.
>"It'll use too much water." - It's going to use less water than the farm that used to run on this land. The county is gaining water from this.
But farms are necessary and datacenters are not.
>"Our electrical bills will go up" - They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid
I've yet to see this happen, also in the case that it does I really don't want to live near a power plant.
>"Wildlife refuge" - This bird refuge is in Brigham City. The data center will be on the opposite end of the county. Some people seem to think it's right next door.
Probably irrelevant, as people would just build something else that's bad for wildlife.
I think a lot of this can be chalked up to poor regulation. People think it will cause bad effects because the government bodies and processes are not trusted to prevent that.
The Power plant is still going to contribute to cooking the planet and using all the remaining fossil fuels, so nothing will be left for our grandchildren.
This is my read of it, I don't really have any special data about the average voter, so feel free to disregard my opinions.
I think the objection to datacenters is not really an objection to the physical buildings and side effects thereof. Like you say, there's not that many downsides to most of these projects.
I think the objection is that people feel like the world is spiritually messed up. Our system's response to these people is "we have AI now, and that's actually going to accelerate things. It's going to be just like today, but moreso! Don't you want that?"
At some abstract level, people don't like the direction we are going in a very broad sense. The fire of modernity is nice to warm you up, but when it gets away and turns into a blaze, people realize that there's something gone wrong.
That there are so many concrete objections trotted out, and that people switch between them at will -- that tells you that people do not like it, but they are having trouble articulating why. Which is fair. It's very difficult to articulate. But people do understand that AI, datacenters, computers, etc are a cause. It's because they are a physical thing. The physical totem of the spiritually bereft online world that big tech has created. It's the online AI slop world people don't like; the physical manifestation of that world is the thing they can concretely object to.
People want to coordinate towards no one building data centers because the purpose of the data centers is to disempower and impoverish every single person who works for a living. However, that real goal looks like a tragedy of the comments where everyone is tempted to defect, so people have to pretend to have selfish local reasons to hate the data centers.
>People want to coordinate towards no one building data centers because the purpose of the data centers is to disempower and impoverish every single person who works for a living.
My Hatian neighbors who do gig economy stuff and are totally not running a car dismantling operation on the side would absolutely benefit if all the people who complain about them and are the driving political force behind the rules used to harass them were disempowered and impoverished.
I think they're a pretty extreme example but you see people in situations like this all across the blue collar economy.
You're completely missing the point by assuming the sentiment is associated with that specific data center. People feel powerless about the effect that AI is having on their lives, and these data centers are simply the physical manifestation of it. They want to feel like they have some control over the future they are providing for their children. So, they are grasping at the only lever that they think they have available to them. No economic argument is going to sway them.
You forgot the "provides 200 permanent jobs while threatening and destroy the human race" argument. And the "I don't like a bunch of billionaires controlling politics, manipulating the economy, trying to use the S&P to fund their schemes, then possibly destroying the species as a side effect" argument.
Maybe average people aren't smart enough to read the Anthropic S-1 and conclude "all those 'end the world' risks should be ignored, because Q3 earnings".
Average people are seeing unemployment, rising prices, all the RAM and disks are gone, and Oligarchs controlling everything and saying we will all be controlled, unemployed, poor, or killed. And you're asking why they don't want to support that in exchange for a little more foot traffic, a temporary construction gig, or a few dozen permanent IT roles?
Here's what Anthropic had to say, I think their argument is a pretty good reason not to build more data centers:
* Catastrophic species-threatening risks (biological, nuclear, etc).
* Massive economic destabilization and disruption
* Compute and infrastructure shortages and volatility
* Wars and international conflict
* Unable to be underwritten by the entire insurance industry
* Takeover by governments, use by threat actors
* A small band of people trying to get rich and payoff ~$1T in liability by claiming value roughly equal to annual GDP of Canada.
Maybe what we need is better messaging from the people building data centers.
WHY do we need infinity data centers? To "win" the AI race? Tell us in quantifiable terms what constitutes "winning."
And we already have 10x the data centers that China has. Can't we pump the brakes a little bit? If not, tell us why not without using vague language.
Finally, tell us, again in quantifiable terms, how building a data center will benefit us. Tell us exactly how many PERMANENT jobs are going to be created, how much tax revenue is going to be created, and let us hold you to it. There HAS to be something in it for us.
It is a democracy. They don't have to give you an answer an answer at all, even if you disagree with it. They get to feel how they feel, and the onus on persuading them otherwise.
Maybe Oleary should spend a minute figuring out there is resistance to the project by listening to the people in the area, and if it's really a good idea he should be able to make his case to convince them otherwise.
Maybe it's how he's done it, more than the outcome. And that is not an invalid reason, people enjoy feeling respected and that they have a voice.
It's the frustrating nature of politics. When an issue first starts to reach the general public consciousness, you tend to see arguments for/against from people who have been thinking about it for a while. As it reaches a wider argument, those arguments get distilled and removed from their context, and they end up being used as liturgy by people who decide on their position first and come up with the reasons second. "Some data centers have wasteful open-loop water cooling systems" -> "data centers waste all our water" etc.
Not only does this end up shutting down good projects, it also puts people in a weird position if they agree with the conclusions but actually think about the reasons. Taking this data center as an example, I would personally be extremely unenthusiastic about a data center standing up its own power generation. It's surely going to be on a smaller scale than a typical power plant and therefore likely to be less efficient and more polluting. The EPA recently stated that power plants not supplying the grid are not subject to certain pollution regulations, so even if the on-site generation could be less polluting, it most likely won't be. This whole idea of data centers bringing their own power generation is so clearly an end run around regulations and proper grid buildout, but that doesn't show up anywhere in your list of objections and I'd bet you didn't just leave it out either. But if I tried to object on this basis, I'd get lumped in with the "uses all the water" people.
I live also an hour away from Hansel Valley, and the concerns are broadly environmental where I'm at. I think people just don't know how to articulate the damage, even though they intuitively feel it coming. I think your point about power generation is debatable. I know some USU and BYU researchers have put out studies on the waste heat being just north of Salt Lake.
In regards to your wildlife refuge and "stinky swamp" points: wildlife don't know the boundaries of refuges, and use more land than owned by DWR. A stinky swamp is perfect habitat. I've been waterfowl hunting for many years and have seen the decline and patterns change. I can't imagine this data center helping much with that.
I wouldn't be opposed to it if AI was otherwise being rolled out responsibly, and being used to solve real problems. But in reality, it's mostly just more vaporware production, meeting notes expansion and contraction, and otherwise useless bullshit.
In the words or my Republican father regarding O'Leary "We just have enough stuff already". And this from a very much blue collar, working class, no health care rural-american.
My rather red rural region, whose leaders have been signing datacenters to raze farmland for the county money that’s sorely needed, just evicted by popular vote every pro-datacenter candidate I can think of in favor of socialist-left candidates while also voting to raise taxes to fund schools. I suspect a load of business tax credits will be terminated over the next few years as a result. Good. There are other ways to bring a lot of money into your county than datacenters, and many of them involve taxing business profits after wages. Red doesn’t mean pro-capitalist, after all! Best of luck in your region :)
But then what's the implication here? Why would there be large scale propaganda or otherwise effort against large companies who have and make a lot of money? In whose interest is it to get people to dislike the data centers (other than, perhaps debatably, the people themselves)? If its all truly just people being duped, to what end does the naïvete serve?
>I really just have to come to the conclusion that we have a tiktok informed voting block here. I've had people ask me if I'm worried that the new data center will spy on me. What?
Are all data centers going to be trouble-free or are you generalizing from this one example? Sorry for the snark, but your n=1 isn't remotely enough to support that claim. I'm not necessarily siding with the people seething at data-centers, but I'm nowhere near convinced that tech bros and company did a good job of avoiding conflict or addressing people's concerns. They helped bring this on themselves. FAFO.
data centers = billionare scheme to take all our jobs away and enslave us.
Its not that hard to understand or deserves any gotcha questions. Maybe they should ask you how exactly do you plan to feed your family once all the jobs are gone and only ppl who have any say are data center owners. God i hate "well actually" tech nerds so much.
This might be the case, but it's not going to stop the technology from stealing your jobs. Billionaires in countries like China are going to leap frog over the US in terms of technology or the billionaires here will just build there instead.
If you think Flock cameras are bad, you have no idea the kind of surveillance the Chinese government uses on their people.
As I've gotten older, I've stopped trying to help people help themselves. Instead, I just watch and close my door in their face when they beg for help.
i get the impression that comment was tongue in cheek, but my unironic opinion is that AI is bad for humanity, and it's good and correct to oppose data centers on the grounds that AI is bad.
According to The Reverse Centaur’s Guide,[1] capital investment in AI is so high that the only possible way for the investments to make enough (and to avoid a bubble) is if whole classes of jobs are automated wholesale. And of course that Capital then takes the saved money from that. Maybe some people dislike datacenters-for-AI based on that. Because it’s all part of the same scheme.
Maybe people who don’t quite like that should be more articulate about it rather than using seeming post hoc reasoning like “water”? I don’t know. In my experience the bar for frustrated-five-on-the-street is quite high if they want to avoid an aww-shucks this voting bloc and their social medias.
"However, I do think in the long run AI will become so broadly effective and so cheap that this [this being areas were humans are likely to maintain a relative (or even absolute) advantage for a significant time that keeps them employed] will no longer apply. At that point our current economic setup will no longer make sense, and there will be a need for a broader societal conversation about how the economy should be organized." [1]
"Over the weekend, Musk responded to an user on X that said that the humanoid’s Total Addressable Market (TAM) was the entire global labor market, [...]" [2]
Altman is a little more cautious and thinks (out loud, I doubt he actually does) we'll all be artists on UBI, or something:
"[...] maybe the jobs of the future will look like playing games to us [...] find new ways to play status games, ability to find new methods for creative expression" "And I think we need something like basic income to have a cushion and a smooth transition to the jobs of the future." "In a world where technology eliminates jobs, it will mean that the cost of having a great life goes down a lot." [3]
These aren't very realistic or popular scenarios, but the people building frontier AI (ok, well, one of those three is not like the others...) wanted to get them out there. Seems people don't want to sign up for the questionable utopias.
Did you miss the whole "Stop Hiring Humans" billboards that were all over SF?
Or Microsoft's AI chief's "I think we're going to have a human-level performance on most, if not all, professional tasks. So, white-collar work, where you're sitting down at a computer — either being, you know, a lawyer, or an accountant, or a project manager, or a marketing person — most of those tasks will be fully automated by an AI within the next 12 to 18 months."
Or Dario's "software engineering will be fully automated in 12 months" or "wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs"
Or Altman's “AI superintelligence at some point on its development curve would be capable of doing a better job being the CEO of a major company than any executive, certainly me... On our current trajectory, we believe we may be only a couple of years away from early versions of true superintelligence.”
Either you've been living under a rock, or you're pretending to be ignorant.
Replacing human jobs should be the dream of all people. You want humans doing drudgery when it could be automated by machines? Why?
> And as I have mentioned the word labour, I cannot help saying that a great deal of nonsense is being written and talked nowadays about the dignity of manual labour. There is nothing necessarily dignified about manual labour at all, and most of it is absolutely degrading. It is mentally and morally injurious to man to do anything in which he does not find pleasure, and many forms of labour are quite pleasureless activities, and should be regarded as such. To sweep a slushy crossing for eight hours, on a day when the east wind is blowing is a disgusting occupation. To sweep it with mental, moral, or physical dignity seems to me to be impossible. To sweep it with joy would be appalling. Man is made for something better than disturbing dirt. All work of that kind should be done by a machine.
— Oscar Wilde, “The Soul of Man Under Socialism,” Fortnightly Review, February 1891
That would be true under a good economic system. Instead we have a system where the benefits are reaped by the few, and the masses get to either work or starve. Taking away the "work" option is, needless to say, offensive to those.
This is explicitly about manual labor. The things on the verge of being automated are precisely not in the "sweeping a slushy crossing" category. If Wilde was here to see the things the slop-peddlers are calling art, he'd be distraught.
Yea thats fine but you think they will distribute the wealth to you in particular?
i mentioned it in my comment too
> Maybe they should ask you how exactly do you plan to feed your family once all the jobs are gone and only ppl who have any say are data center owners.
i am not conviced that markzuckerberg stays up all night building datacenters so he can pass on that wealth to you.
> I cannot help saying that a great deal of nonsense is being written and talked nowadays about the dignity of manual labour. There is nothing necessarily dignified about manual labour at all, and most of it is absolutely degrading
That's unfortunate, as manual labor will be the only thing left if AI companies have their way.
People are pissed that Big Tech/VC/SV has taken over seemingly everything, enshittified it, and enriched the enshittifiers (while the economy has gotten worse for nearly everyone else, and Big Tech's fucking insane leaders have gone full steam ahead at destroying the social contract--literally in some cases by eviscertating whole swaths of the American federal government, and probably illegally at that--and funding the campiagns of those who seek to shield Big Tech from liability.). All this despite having come onto the scene under the guise of "Don't Be Evil" and "Think Different." Data Centers are the most visible manifestation of this ugly side of Big Tech/VC/SV, and ugly in and of themselves; thus, it is not surprising that people roundly reject them. There is (because of the timing of this inflection point--upward--in data centers and inflection point--downward--in economic sentiment/reality) probably also some post hoc ergo propter hoc or temporal-correlation-as-causation going on here too.
The thing is, it takes a pretty coherent worldview of Big Tech, VC economics, politics, etc., to state above as such, so I am not surprised (in a time when education, too, is being destroyed--often by Big Tech itself) most people can't articulate it. 1 in 5 american adults is functionally illiterate, after all.
If you believe all of those counter points will hold true for even a month after operation starts you're real naive. People driving the plans to build out this infrastructure do not care about a single point listed there and will lie to get it over the line.
Are you saying they're going to construct the data center then move it to a different location? Or are you suggesting they're going to change the laws of physics so that sound propagates differently?
I'm saying that just because they say that they will generate their own electricity, or require less water than a farm, doesn't mean that they will continue to do so into the future.
All of these counter points? Do you think they're going to pull a fast one and move the building hundreds of miles at the last second into someone's back yard? What about water? Are they going to at the last minute change the cooling from a closed loop system? This is going to use 162 million gallons less per year than the farm. How in the world is the DC going to burn through that much extra water at the last minute? Are they going to pull a fast one on us and just hook the building into the grid? What are you talking about?
You're proving my point. No one is actually thinking about this. Everyone is just driven by hatred for people who have more money than them.
1. Closed loop water systems use chemicals that can leech out of the system. There is 100% going to be more discoveries as time goes on with such a fast build out. Maybe not enough to make it not worthwhile? But not 100% safe either.
2. I’m anti-data center. I think at some point, you pull the levers you have? I think the tech industry is too consolidated and wields too much power, and the whole data center buildout has been done under a shroud of secrecy.
I think it’s rational to pull the levers you have, when the industry is predicting something close to the apocalypse.
Yes it’s mostly vibes, but until the industry stops acting like fucking nutters. I’m voting on vibes.
No, I just know how business works. When you are doing something like this you establish the bare minimum as the baseline, get your foot in the door, then start testing boundaries.
Also these buildings will be abandoned within the next couple years as models move more towards the edge.
It's a Chinese psy-op. There are legitimate reasons to want to regulate data center noise, but that's an eminently solvable problem. The out-of-proportion reaction you're seeing is driven by misinformation.
At this point I really can't see any other justification. The amount of misinformation and hysteria around this issue is like nothing I've seen before.
Just come to Georgia and talk to actual people living here after a data center moved in. You know, like this: https://youtu.be/4A6NECilAls
Also: Why the actual fuck is it taking AOC (who doesn't even live here) to ask these questions and connect the dots publicly.
And "This is going to bring a LOT of money to my county which sorely needs it and a LOT of people to my dying rural town." is a pipe dream. If you're honest about it, I think you know that.
"I really just have to come to the conclusion that we have a tiktok informed voting block here." sounds like you're trying to insult whole groups of people. But if you get your news from Fox news, this isn't the insult you think it is.
Yes, I do. Know why I think that? Under threat of another expensive lawsuit, my local datacenter forced our town council to give a 50% tax cut for 12 years. So they are already able to not pay about 1.7 billion in taxes. If they could pay $0, they would.
So your town gave up $140 million PER YEAR in tax revenue to avoid an expensive lawsuit? I call bullshit.
EDIT: I looked it up, not surprisingly, you're really shading the truth here. This is the barn, yes? So it looks like what happened is that the township denied the application for the DC, the developer sued, and the township cut a deal to let the DC go through, with a 50% cut to their tax bill for 12 years. Then the value of the DC went up dramatically, because AI, and the township tried to claim that the tax cut was for 50% of the original value when they approved the tax cut, not 50% of the property value when the tax is due. Their own attorney told them that was bullshit, so they eventually dropped it.
This is like if a store gives you a coupon for 50% off and then you take it in to redeem it a few months later and they've quadrupled their prices, and they try to tell you the coupon actually means 50% off of what their prices were when you got the coupon. Ridiculous.
I don't trust the datacenter side of the table at all. I don't trust their claims. I don't trust their numbers. We have myriad examples of their lies. Do we have any examples of them being good corporate citizens that offset this?
I don't trust that local communities have any recourse if/when the datacenter changes the terms, violates agreements, poisons the air and ground and water, loses interest and leaves the area to deal with the mess on its own, and so on. Moneyed interests have bought legislators and directed them to quietly advance projects that don't help the local constituents, and then hide behind contract law when what they are doing is clearly bad for regular people.
There is literally zero reason to trust these folks, and every reason to be skeptical. They have shown themselves to be unrepentant bad actors time and time again. Why should we allow any of this without requiring real guarantees and protections for local communities?
It will not bring tax money or permanent jobs to your town. What are the tax offsets that are being promised to developers to get them to build there, and how are these going to help fund local services? The same people responsible for the hollowing out of your rural town are now telling you that they're going to fix it.
If you truly think having a >GW AI datacenter in your town is going to benefit you and your neighbors then I don't know what to tell you. It's like listening to someone tell you about how the stripper really is into him. Good luck
> "It'll use too much water." - It's going to use less water than the farm that used to run on this land. The county is gaining water from this.
comparing water for food(?) is a bit crazy to compare water for AI speculation
There are a lot of good reasons to have data center moratoriums and it's so they can be regulated at the federal level and every city has to start at the same starting line. You currently have data centers doing a race to the bottom between desperate cities
* We've built a technology that has obliterated entry level hiring
* That technology might obliterate all the other "normal" person white collar jobs. The kinds of jobs you can clock in and out and not think about them outside of that. Instead, every new job will be a managerial one working with 500 agents.
* Loaning all the money to build these data centers and train these models costs so much it cranks rates through the roof, so we've frozen the real estate market and nobody can move or buy in
* The past 10 years of American politics have been defined by how the last time we did a broad replacement of labor event like that for a group of people. Their standard of living permanently shrunk (the NAFTA disrupted working class), and we may end up doing that to you guys again. The only solution is that the government is going to have to do some sort of UBI or redistribution (which the last time they did during COVID, it was followed by the greatest inflation we've seen in our lifetimes)
* This technology might literally destroy the world in the next 10 years, and we keep accidentally releasing it into the world like its Skynet. But we are not responsible for it, and by the way its unavoidable with this technology. Somewhere on the other side, utopia will arise (No really your standard of living will actually go up after losing your job this time unlike everyone else, trust me.)
Then half the people in this thread is smugly are acting baffled at why people don't want this, and going "Hey they don't know that much about data center logistics but still oppose this. What is up with that?." Forget about if a data center actually ends up being a net drag if its near you and the standard nimby stuff. Even if it weren't, what benefit does marching towards this future have for anybody not in the top 10%? Sure, you can make a bunch of economic theory arguments: growth is always good, stagflation, Luddites, etc. But in practice, economic advancement and technology over the past 30 years has advanced so fast people can't even comprehend it, and in return everybody is becoming stupider, more unhappy, polarized, and the median standard of living has dropped as rich people have 20x their net worth. Why would a normal person want more of this?
The current framing of US politics is basically "vote for us because the other party is an existential threat" and data center proponents have adopted a similarly retarded position "we have to build data centers or China wins."
For this framing to work, you need a base of reliable supporters already all-in on your cause regardless of how you actually perform, and the data center proponents have done virtually everything imaginable the last four years to drive people away. Why AI investors are shocked (shocked) is really beyond explicable reason; American on both teams have never responded well to this kind of brain-dead gambit.
Exactly. The most baffling thing about the backlash is how shocked the tech boosters are at it. I know tech can be a bubble, but it's stark to see just how out of touch people inside can be.
Most American's lives have been made worse by AI so far, rather than better. They are deeply skeptical that future gains will be freely shared with them rather than horded by a few tech oligarchs. Based on pretty much all of modern history, they're right to be skeptical.
This is apparently incomprehensible to many AI proponents, but many people would genuinely rather live next to a farm than a data center. They don't care that you can vibe code a hobby project or a jira ticket 10x faster than before. They do want cheaper utilities and a secure economic position, and they are well aware that AI is providing the opposite for them.
This comment section blows my mind! Are we that insulated from the world? Are these all bots? Am I crazy???
Tech is now viewed in the same lense as dirty greedy oil companies. If an oil company opened a candy store most people I know would not go because "Oh those oil companies can't be trusted"
Anytime I talk to anyone not in tech they're extremely sceptical of anything tech companies do. Most common reasons I hear as to why is greed, social media destroying children in many ways, seeking political power, and now many parents are concerned their child won't have critical thinking skills because AI is here to think for them.
I don't think they're crazy or obviously wrong. It breaks my heart to hear tech leaders chalk this all up to "AI has poor messaging" as if you say "Our lies have got to be better so we can make the public believe what we want". I've never seen tech so out of touch.
> Tech is now viewed in the same lens as dirty greedy oil companies. If an oil company opened a candy store most people I know would not go because "Oh those oil companies can't be trusted"
That's right, but consider what people would be saying about oil companies on Driller News. Thousands of users here have financial or ideological vested interests in the success of the current crop of tech companies. They can recognize the individual faults of the industry where it doesn't affect their primary interest - such as disliking social media, addictive design and so on - but when you start talking about THE tech golden goose, you will find very little opposition.
The thing that gets me is why the hell are these things being powered with loud generators and fossil fuels? These facilities are billed as being 21st century technological marvels. But what's actually delivered looks like something out of the industrial revolution. Harvesting old jet engines from decommissioned planes in order to power your facility? You've got to be joking.
This is a once in a generation opportunity to get private investment for solar farms from multi-trillion dollar market cap firms and we're squandering it in order to construct noisy, polluting behemoths that belong firmly in the prior century. Talk about wasting our political capital.
For the most part, the same people are against the data center buildout and the sustainable energy buildout. If the US were a thinking nation, it would be trivial to ram through solar panels, wind turbines and transmission lines. However, we all saw what happened when Massachusetts tried to build power lines to buy power from Hydro-Quebec, for example. It’s entirely a regulatory self own that AI capex is being spent on gas turbines instead of wind turbines.
How do you run the data centers during the night if they are solar powered? The only on-the-shelf low carbon tech with the reliability and deployability we need is nuclear. Any other discussion is just pointless.
> How do you run the data centers during the night if they are solar powered?
A combination of battery storage and grid power, which is generally quite cheap overnight if current off-peak and on-peak pricing is any indicator.
I do not see any evidence that nuclear is quickly and economically deployable. The latest nuclear expansion to come online in the US took 15 years, 35 billion dollars, and resulted in power bill increases for customers to pay for that cost. If we can actually solve that it would be nice, but it hasn't been shown yet.
Neither of those get to the carbon neutral point of the whole endeavor. Just more complicated steps to shuffle the deck chairs around. Nuclear power is just magic rocks that get hot, put them in the water to make steam for the turbines. The costly part is a political and regulatory problem that is more easily solved than paving over all the farm land with solar panels or strip mining third world countries for lithium.
> Nuclear power is just magic rocks that get hot, put them in the water to make steam for the turbines.
Oh I see, I didn't realize it was so simple. Let's meet back in a week and we can compare my backyard solar + battery demonstration to your nuclear demonstration.
This is a good example of feeling like I've been transported back in time. A time before people had an answer to the question: How can I use a computer if I've disconnected it from the grid? (I guess that takes us back to 1980)
Did they reject data centers? Or did they represent the current ownership model behind data centers?
Tech “ownership models” have accelerated the separation of haves and have nots. I’ve wondered if datacenters were regulated such that they become public goods (libraries, power and water infra, etc), if the public would invest more agreeably in them.
And agreed, when people have a problem with data centers, it isn't because of new technology, it's because the data centers represent taking resources (water, electricity, RAM) and power away (work as social leverage) from the people.
"No sooner had Everet in 1758 erected the first wool-shearing machine that was driven by water-power, than it was set on fire by 100,000 people who had been thrown out of work. Fifty thousand workpeople, who had previously lived by carding wool, petitioned Parliament against Arkwright’s scribbling mills and carding engines. The enormous destruction of machinery that occurred in the English manufacturing districts during the first 15 years of this century, chiefly caused by the employment of the power-loom, and known as the Luddite movement, gave the anti-Jacobin governments of a Sidmouth, a Castlereagh, and the like, a pretext for the most reactionary and forcible measures. It took both time and experience before the workpeople learnt to distinguish between machinery and its employment by capital, and to direct their attacks, not against the material instruments of production, but against the mode in which they are used."
— Karl Marx, Capital, Volume I (1867), Part IV, Ch. 15, Section 5: “The Strife Between Workman and Machine”
Because tech has all the money and all the power these days. They do whatever they want with basically unlimited funds. Big tech has reshaped everything the internet used to be just because they can. Our entire workspace is getting reshaped and who is going to benefit the most? Large tech companies.
Most people feel like they have no say in anything that is going on because a handful of insanely large tech companies are just deciding the future for everyone, and it's in their own best interest- not the best interest of the poeple.
The fact that Americans can be made to vote for NIMBY policies was well known. My question is what Americans think economic growth in the 21st century looks like?
As someone who grew up in a country with near zero growth (some would call it “sustainable growth”) and the resultant stagflation, I wouldn’t wish that feeling of growing into an economy where you can only aspire to take from others, on my worst enemies.
I agree with these voters on almost everything, from the need for more energy and water infrastructure to using this growth to pay for basic needs like healthcare. But when push comes to shove, for growth, the cranes have to show up in your neighborhood and build stuff.
It seems like we are habituating the American public to just reject that and hope it goes somewhere else (tm) while they get the gains and that’s not how this works.
I think this is missing the issue. It's not the cranes and walls that bother people, it's the tech companies. They've shown themselves repeatedly to be bad faith and exploitative actors. Now they're asking to move in. It's easy to understand why people are saying no.
And that's even before we consider the impact of LLMs themselves. Personally I expect LLMs to create tremendous growth, but that should be highly counter-intuitive. They're going to absolutely wreck cognitive labor; society entering into an era of deteriorating wages for cognitive work as well as increase unemployment is quite likely. My prediction is based on 'what comes next' but if somebody's only concerned about paying rent next month, this is all going to be, again understandably, seen as pie in the sky.
>My question is what Americans think economic growth in the 21st century looks like?
I think they have very rationally concluded there is no economic growth benefiting them in massively consolidated capital building the infrastructure to replace their small businesses and jobs.
How are data centers replacing small businesses? That sounds like a politicians broken speech reader.
They’re literally bringing jobs and paying out the ass, the unions love em [1] and absolutely supercharging local tax revenue, just basic economic growth stuff.
Off the top of my head, copywriters, PR researchers, graphic designers, marketers, tutors.
This is the doublespeak that has the public so distrustful: value companies at billions and trillions of dollars based primarily on their ability to replace your workforce, then tell the workforce there will be no displacement. It's insults the intelligence of reasonable people.
I'm opposed to NIMBYism 99% of the time, but these data centers aren't being opposed for no reason. There's stories coming out all over the country of negative impacts on communities and backroom deals with local officials who sign NDAs during negotiations. There's a goldrush on in the US to build these out and when that happens companies run roughshod over communities.
> My question is what Americans think economic growth in the 21st century looks like?
The people I’ve spoken with don’t want data centers in anyone’s backyard, park, grassland, unincorporated township, or wasteland. Not just a NIMBY thing. The voters want big tech to make do with what they already have. Voters don’t have to imagine what economic growth looks like—that’s an exercise left for the innovators. They do get to imagine what it does not look like, and unrestrained data center buildouts are not that future.
> My question is what Americans think economic growth in the 21st century looks like?
Maybe it looks like a reduction in monopolies, increased competition, lowering of prices as automation pays dividends, and a general de-consolidation of power.
It doesn't look like 4-companies owning the whole stock market and incumbents using AI to cut every worker they can with no longterm plan, using AI to deny insurance claims, and rig the deck in the most unconscionable uncompetitive ways they can.
There are outcomes much worse than "flat" if we aren't careful, and even the AI CEOs say as much.
> But when push comes to shove, for growth, the cranes have to show up in your neighborhood and build stuff.
There is absolutely no need for cranes to show up in or near existing neighborhoods to build data centers. The US is not out of remote land that would be well suited for this purpose, but building in those places requires spending more money to build supporting infrastructure, so businesses prefer to avoid that cost.
If the growth is truly beneficial, it should be able to pay for itself, and I think that is what people want to see enforced.
Data centers take resources, land, and ways of life from rural communities to give economic growth opportunities to people in cities without paying those rural communities.
I think that as an industry, we'll have to make the case persuasively that the datacenters won't hurt quality of life for nearby residents, that they'll have a positive influence on the local economy, and that even more broadly that the benefit from AI is shared and not captured by small group of the ultra wealthy.
That's politics and democracy. People get to vote that, and people that want to make changes have to work to convince the people that the change is beneficial, otherwise they lose.
I am not suggesting they will. That's a discussion between the communities and the datacenter developers. And the datacenter developers will have a track record they'll be able to stand behind with prior projects, or they'll have to explain why the harms were understated and the benefits were overstated.
For the record, I don't think this is necessarily a positive development for our field or the US. But the solution was one or two years in the past and involved more truthful and principled behavior by the companies developing these projects.
This election speaks for itself in terms of how the population feels about the matter.
Why should we believe that we will meaningfully benefit from that economic growth? We aren't benefiting much now. And if we won't benefit then why should we care about it?
Does economic growth look like companies firing hundreds or thousands of employees in batches because they are replacing them with AI? Because that's what people are seeing in headlines. That and mass surveillance.
Why are you upset that citizens have a right in how their communities are developed? Do you not understand that a majority of people do not care about helping capitalists get slightly richer and would rather have a life of quiet dignity?
Do we need “economic growth”? For that matter, what does that even mean? Personally, I’m more concerned with meeting real human needs, ensuring a fair and equitable world for everyone, and protecting the environment and ecosystems for long-term sustainability. I’m not even remotely convinced we need ‘number go up’ to make this happen - if anything, the hyper focus on “economic growth” seems to run counter to equity and sustainability.
“ Do we need “economic growth”? For that matter, what does that even mean? Personally, I’m more concerned with meeting real human needs”
As I pointed out, I lived in a country that answered this question exactly like you wanted. It was like living in a country where every institution from the college to the coffee shop was the DMV. It works..just about. But it sucks.
> Do we need “economic growth”? For that matter, what does that even mean? Personally, I’m more concerned with meeting real human needs, ensuring a fair and equitable world for everyone,
For example, social security relies on economic growth for funding. Meeting real human needs is a lot easier when humans are more productive.
Economic growth doesn't just mean people have more money. It means people are more productive. More productive people produce more goods than they need to survive. Those goods can be redirected to people with needs they can't supply themselves.
Economic growth is what has driven the world to be more fair and equitable over the last thousand years.
There are a set of data centers that got built where local laws were (and continue to be) broken. Messaging from the data center builders is that accepting their will is inevitable and they are above regulation. Given these, it is an entirely reasonable position to ask for a complete halt.
This doesn't happen when UPS opens a distribution center or CVS opens a store because everybody knows UPS and CVS are bound by local laws. That cannot be said of e.g. SpaceX, so the only play is to keep them out, full stop. Nobody wants a neighbor who is above the law.
Thats the only good thing to come out of this. The rest of it really highlights how we acrewed up violating personal liberty with overly agressive zoning and other regulation.
People cared about TARP because these were companies managing their retirements and banks holding their savings. They had been around for 100 years+ and many had branches in their hometown.
Very few people know, or care, about AI companies in any way.
If AI companies go bust so will those retirements accounts (and the economy) So I think it is likely that AI companies will be bailed out when the bubble bursts.
I guess the lesson multinationals learned from the 2008 financial crisis is that if you fail is better to fail really really really big.
Tech stocks, and stocks in general, are overwhelmingly held by wealthy people who are way more exposed to crash than working class folks. The median retiree is much more reliant on social security and safe investments than they are on NASDAQ. Even if a few big tech companies go to zero it will only have a modest impact on their finances.
Obviously there would be knock on effects of a major crash that are hard to predict, but people inside the AI bubble wildly overrate how invested most Americans are in their success.
yes, happened under both a red and blue administration. It was the perfect example to show that political party is meaningless when it comes to financial bailouts.
Democrats have participated in previous bailouts, I don't see why they wouldn't participate in this one. Especially given that the "it" in your "let it burn" scenario isn't AI companies, it's the economy.
Not at all. The reasonable democrats will be forced to clean this mess (and Iran) while spending their newly found political capital and pissing off their base.
AI bubble pops - they will vote bailouts if the situation is 2008 like. They will grudgingly support or even escalate the war in Iran because just leaving is not an option - so some stability is a must. They will support israel for the same reason.
And they will support data centers buildouts because ai is the future of economic growth.
Trump has created a mess in which there are few good moves. But they will own them.
I saw first hand the Port Washington, Wisconsin data center build and spoke to a guy working on the project. As he points out, the pay is the best he's ever had, but as construction is always boom and bust, he was under no illusion that it would last forever.
Dump truck divers, electricians, heavy machinery operators, and many other construction trades were benefiting within a 2-hour radius of the site.
Feels like the closest thing we will every see to big tech companies investing in local communities. Clearly they must be built correctly, but the cash injection to workers pockets must be a welcomed addition to local families.
> Feels like the closest thing we will every see to big tech companies investing in local communities.
When the data center is built and the dump trucks leave, what is the ongoing benefit for that community?
What is the opportunity cost of building that datacenter compared to different kinds of development with similar land and resource use? It seems to me that datacenters have low ongoing employment requirements compared to those resources used, and that many of the benefits of running the datacenter aren't gained by the local community but rather by businesses located far away.
> What is the opportunity cost of building that datacenter compared to different kinds of development
Is there another group that's lining up to build stuff on that land? Should nobody ever be allowed to build on any land unless it's being used to the maximum possible utility?
If datacenters in space becomes a thing, we will then learn that the rockets that launch them release neurotoxins into the air, and call for an immediate moratorium on rocket launches.
Anyone with the care to pay attention to what is going on realizes that the pushback on DCs has nothing to do with DCs, and everything to do with fear about AI.
That's what happens when you are building something too fast and affects negativity the local economy. I personal doubt this data centres are really the issue. But we got what we paid for.
FUD spread from competing nation states is where it all originated from. Remember, no one gave a shit about datacenters until the AI race began. If you live in a medium to large city goto google maps and search for "datacenter" in your town, i bet you live within 5 miles of one that you've never even noticed before.
There's even debate about the one being built outside of Amarillo Texas, next to the freaking Pantex site (where all the US nuclear weapons are assembled). Like, opposition to it makes no sense at all hence the reason why the Pantex plant is there. There's nothing within 100 miles to affect (except nuclear warheads i guess) yet there's a debate.
edit: let me add that the price of natural gas in TX is effectively zero.. or may even be negative. There's plenty of energy available. Now, availability of turbines to convert those chemical bonds to eletricity is another matter but the gas is there.
The true price of gas power production is the externalized cost of its emissions, which is currently not reflected in the market price but instead paid for by all of humanity.
Natural gas power production is by far the cleanest and most available for this use case. Nuclear would be better but can't be brought online fast enough. Solar/Wind would be best but there's not enough yet either and behind the meter generation isn't even feasible. All things considered, natural gas is the best fit.
How do the jobs and local economic benefit compare between a steel mill, a semiconductor fab, and a datacenter?
Are companies proposing steel mills and semiconductor fabs directly adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods?
Will those developments pay for the required infrastructure expansions, or get special deals to waive those costs in return for building in that community?
Mostly yes. Everyone would also prefer that steel mills semiconductor fabs get built somewhere else, where they personally don't have to deal with any of the externalities.
I don't know why people voted for this. Probably something to do with all the big tech CEOs visibly paying bribes and tribute to the corrupt and massively unpopular president. I doubt the anti-data-center backlash is as extreme without that.
But also just NIMBY. No one likes to live near industry.
To get this big a backlash, you need a variety of reasons to oppose that appeal to a broad coalition of voters. Inevitably some of those reasons will be silly (a lot of people talked themselves into voting for a 2nd term for Trump, after all!).
This is completely unsurprising. Data centers are the epitome of the phrase "Privatize profits, socialize costs."
It's amazing to me that no matter how seemingly "smart" tech oligarchs are, they don't realize that you actually have to incentivize people to do the things you want by making it benefit THEM. You can't just go "Oh, this is good for society so you need to take one for the team!" Nobody believes that BS anymore. When have the oligarchs themselves ever "taken one for the team?"
Now they will just need to build datacenters in more remote areas, and pay for the infrastructure themselves. Personally I've always been a fan of building them on old oil rigs or stuff like that because there's no point in wasting fresh water to cool these things when seawater is almost as good.
But my main takeaway remains that it's just wild how BAD tech oligarchs are at understanding the psychology and motivations of the public. You'd think that when a group of voters can absolutely destroy you and everything you worked for just by passing the right legislation, you'd put in some effort to understand their mindset and incentives. But these people seem to spend all their time in their own echo chambers. Maybe in a twist of irony, their social media algorithms tell them only want they want to hear so they have no idea how much the general public hates them.
Getting people to vote against building anything is easy, of course when people start complaining about lack of housing, or a failing economy its quite a bit more challenging for them to recognize how regulation (that they may have voted for) led to those issues.
A lot of noise, pollution, resource usage, power sound problems etc can be easily solved. The one that I think people are frustrated is the wealth inequality and data centers are directly seen as making few people insanely rich while their lives are not improving whatsoever. I don't see a solution to this yet.
What can be done about the noise? I keep thinking about this meeting in Carroll County, KY about 1 week ago where residents confronted county officials by playing recordings of the data center noise ongoing onside their homes. [0][1]
> “You guys have made your point, okay,” Nab tells the local residents.
> “But we have to live with this now!” they urgently respond.
> “Oh, ya have to live with it?” Nab shoots back, smirking as he speaks.
> “Yes we do!” the locals reply, as other townies chime in. At one point, a security guard jumps in and warns everyone to act like “adults.”
The near open mocking of residents as they grapple with persistent noise is what bends me the wrong way.
We had a clown running in our local election who had "no data centers" on their election signs. The area they were running to control is the last place you would ever want to put a data center. This clown won. Politicians use this to fool stupid people.
Yep same as GOP using trans panic, women in men's sports, Haitians eating cats and dogs, gender reassignment surgery in schools. These things aren't real issues but it works.
Data centers are the way of the future. We can either embrace them or fall behind places like China. I definitely think they should pay their own way 100%, but for God's sake, look at the big picture. Everyone uses AI in some way or another every day.
They won't, because we'll still have no money to pay for healthcare as a result of AI taking our jobs. To the contrary, right now the rational choice is to not allow these AI farms to be installed so that many of us (this is not only about the US) still have access to a decent lifestyle (including decent health, that is).
AI should be owned collectively and we should all benefit from the loss of jobs. It was trained on our data and has no value without our labor, so it is our rightful property.
The difference is that these AI data centers use significantly more power on a per-rack basis (and thus requiring much bigger backup generators) and generate much more heat (requiring much more cooling) than the data centers of old.
Has anyone done an analysis of how these laws are defining "data center"? Anyone accidentally ban having a rack of servers on an office closet? That could suck for a lot of small businesses. I'm all for local autonomy, but knee jerk local laws can also be... messy.
Laws are public, you are welcome to go read them. All of the ones I've read define it based on [x] megawatt of compute or similar. None of them are banning a rack of servers in a closet.
I would be surprised if a rack of servers in an office closet could realistically draw 25 megawatts of energy, which is generally the cutoff that these local ordinances use to define a "data center". Keeping in mind that the cost of commercial electricity alone for powering even a 1 megawatt data center continuously for 1 month would have to be at least 100,000 dollars, right?
I haven't seen a broad analysis, but every specific one I've looked into accounted for your concern and defined some sort of minimum size or power draw.
They never do that in the "first round". Usually you gotta wait for a compliance industry to spring up and then they inevitably lobby for the definition of people who need to pay the compliance industry to get watered down. It's just the natural incentive creep of the system.
its going to bring a fraction of the jobs they are projecting. and just most jobs will be temp/ contract just to build the damn thing. after its built it 90%+ related to the project will be out of job and likely leave your town (best case)
The sad reality is neither sides' politicians care. Conservatives opened the doors for the elitists, now the liberals come in and close the door behind them, ensuring no other competitors get in. This "Dems vs Reps" opposition portrayed in the media is really just a clandestine partnership. And the general public falls for it every time.
are data centers profitable, or are there currently a ton of hopes and dreams filled by outrageous investments that will bring down the economy if/when the bubble bursts? i am worried that it's the latter, but i have no clue and it feels too stupid to be true. are they actually making a profit?
They’re probably inevitable anyway. Nobody likes to live near any kind of industry. For me as a kid that was dairy farms. Fucking horrible. Nobody lining up to close them down though. Hog farms are also terrible. Chickens I can imagine too, never seen one personally though.
Even something relatively innocuous like an orange grove. Rented a house in one before. Peaceful most of the time, free citrus. But when it got too cold they’d burn diesel in these little tower things and run a wind machine (like a giant reverse windmill) that was loud as fuck all night.
Had some relatives that lived near some kind of paper pulping plant. Guess if that sucked or not?
Now that I think about it, the local environment not smelling like absolute shit is probably a relatively recent development.
We have so much vacant industrial land in the rust belt (so-called "brownfields"), with good access and utility infrastructure, why not build the data centers there? Why do they need to go on farmland in the countryside?
Places like Gary, IN should be courting them. Great access, on a huge lake so water is no issue, not in a hurricane or earthquake zone, and they desperately need people/companies paying property taxes.
I lived near mega diaries and oil fields growing up. Depending on the wind you either smelled manure or sulfur. People used to say "smells like money" because ag and oil were the source of jobs in the area.
I also believe they’re inevitable. Capital will find places without opposition and build them. There are thousands of jurisdictions in the US and capital usually wins.
I’ll take data centers over pig farms pulp mills any day of the week.
Pretty much. Mushroom farms smell like shit when the wind turns. Even just normal farms smell like manure at various times of the year. Amazon fulfillment centres are hideous and create a lot of traffic in the surrounding area. There's a reason building industry near residential in the SimCity series causes residential property values to drop.
Anything with a whiff of data centers were squashed. Here in Rhode Island there were rumors that the economic development ballot question was so vague that it could end up being a data center.
i'm not cheering or crying because of the results but curious about what happens next, I guess ready or not, into the future we go! Do me a favor and right down the 10 things promised to you by the people you voted for and put it an envelope to open 2 years from now at the next election. I think that's a worthwhile exercise and asked my kids (17 and 14) to do the same since they were both super tuned in to the election and have their own opinions.
The high-level solution, though, is to stop concentrating housing and all the supporting infrastructure. NIMBY is a positive force in that regard.
The classic economic force concentrating people and businesses into small geographical areas is jobs, and perhaps jobs can finally be much more remote than in the past.
BTW, people will accept data centers near them when the price is right. The data center people just need to find that price.
I'm curious how you can square spreading infrastructure/housing around with the impact of climate change. It seems like the answer through that lens is to drive sustainable urban planning, not to move further towards suburban sprawl & car-centric culture.
Data centres have no real reason to be built in anyone's backyard. To prove it I'll just say that some of the guys that want to put it in your backyard, also ponder putting it in space.
Forgive my ignorance, but how would the current data center proposals "economically benefit their children"? It seems like a local land concession that would benefit a national economy, but hardly do anything long-term for the locality where the data center is built (maybe ~100 jobs and some property taxes).
Not sure where you've been but US productivity has skyrocketed since adoption of AI and this productivity increase has not been replicated in jurisdictions slower to adopt AI. This pushes up wages, decreases costs etc.
That's aside from the build-out jobs.
Anyone who works anywhere close to data center build including construction, networking, sysadmin is cleaning up right now. Their wages have doubled and demand is huge.
Maybe it is 100 permanent jobs, but that's huge for a small community, and the thousands of temporary jobs make an impact, too.
Unless you're really ideology driven there's very few things that can be built around your neighbourhood (especially in a suburb) that will make it more valuable or pleasant to live. NIMBY is just not wanting to lose things.
The narrative consistently in all the advertisement was that there was some sort of “loophole, which would allow politicians to lower the income threshold at any point without needing a vote”. I probably heard that statement over a thousand times in the past couple months.
That and even Gavin himself got on the pulpit to preach how it was poorly drafted and shouldn’t be passed. I legitimately don’t think I saw a single person or advertisement for it, you’re the first.
US voters will do absolutely anything but stop using the apps and technology from Big Tech that are powered by these data centers. It's always hilarious when someone shows me a Reel or TikTok about how they hate data centers. Often, they will also send off an AI response on why data centers are problematic. They are completely oblivious or knowingly ignorant.
So are you saying they should have voted for data centers? Because I don't want them to vote for data centers, even if they're a bunch of hypocrites about it.
I think they're saying that "data centers" have become a totem, where people believe that rejecting datacenter development projects will solve problems that cannot be solved this way. I've encountered more than one person who thinks, for example, that if we just ban datacenters there will be no powerful AI systems so we won't need to study their capabilities and risks in detail.
You don't need to have the correct reason for making the correct decision. What rejecting data centers will do is slow down the obscene excessive demand for more memory being taken off the consumer market, even if just a little bit. It will force AI models to become more efficient within their resource constraints instead of sucking up all the air in the room.
Sure. But it's risky to let people make correct decisions for incorrect reasons, because they may react in very silly ways when their goals aren't achieved. If the populist tide turns onto memory companies ("stop making AI chips!"), and a widely supported protest encampment blocks Micron's new fabs, that's going to increase your memory woes more than datacenter moratoriums helped them.
The city I live in is currently struggling with the issue that decades ago they banned ugly cell towers, but it turned out that resulted in a lot of dead zones for cell coverage in town, and now people are complaining about that.
I'm becoming increasingly pessimistic about democracy lately. The average voter will ask for a grab bag of contradictory things and then complain about attempts to deliver any one of them. My local subreddit wants cheap housing but also wants to preserve farmland and maintain historic buildings and welcome more immigrants at the same time.
My gripe is less with democracy and more with the ad-driven economy that has taken over.
The competition is so intense that in order for media to survive now, it needs to relentlessly farm clicks/views. So a story about a datacenter being built near a migratory goose pond carries way more value than the story about the pond actually is a Walmart parking lot runoff pit.
There is like this business game of whoever can fear monger and misinform the most without outright lying wins, and being honest and truthful gets you punished.
We live in a system wherein our survival is gate kept by oligopolistic technology, energy, and health insurance corporations.
One can very much oppose the expansion of data centers while also using Claude all day to build software, because if you don't, you will lose your livelihood to someone who will. The problem isn't the technology, it's how it insanely disempowers workers in the labor market vs capital.
Until we have a durable solution for that along with the externalities that data centers impose on their localities, there is nothing hypocritical about using LLMs while voting to bring them to heel in the interest of the many over the interests of the few.
I enjoy eating meat, but I don't support everything thea meat industry does, does that make me a hypocrit?
The fact that I enjoy social use social media and AI, even though I have complicated feelings about the ethics of the companies building them, including the impact of expansion of data centers. This doesn't have to be all or nothing!
A ridiculous gotcha on a site where every other article is about using AI to automate your job, solve frontier math problems, or port old video games to new platforms. So to be clear nothing is our fault here? It's all just about the billionaires "making us" use AI for all these things?
If my government just decided to wire $1B account into my personal account without strings attached I'd 100% accept that in ecstasy. So if I say "spending money this way is unfair" I'm a hypocrite???
Or maybe, just maybe, one can acknowledge that a thing benefits them personally isn't necessarily justified for the whole country or humanity as a whole, and admitting this makes them less hypocritical?
Exactly. We need a word for this common mixture of naïveté, hypocrisy, small-mindedness, and petulance.
Common pattern:
"I'm campaigning against A."
"But you want B, which clearly is caused by A."
"I don't care!"
The problem is that they often will never suffer from their irrational campaigns because the campaigns are prevented by other powers, so they don't learn that they were irrational; or they do suffer from it, but only much later and in an unspecific way, so they never connect the dots and again don't learn from it.
A lot of people here are portraying the opposition to data centers as being uneducated hypocrites who are against anything getting built. When you look at what the opposition are saying, they generally know what they are talking about. Here's Abdul El-Sayed (new Michigan senator) talking about his ideas for regulating the AI industry: https://youtu.be/YX44XDt0gXI?t=182 . For datacenters specifically, he isn't against them being built but thinks that there need to be rules in place so the communities that they're being built in actually benefit from them. He views moratoriums as something that localities and states should be doing until those rules are in place federally. The rules he suggests are:
- There must be community benefits agreements negotiated transparently with the local community
- Any new datacenters being built cannot raise utility rates
- Some of the revenue generated by the datacenter must be set aside to improve power reliability
- Datacenters must not touch our waterways at all
- Datacenters must be built using union labor
A lot of the communities that had datacenters built in them ended up getting steamrolled in negotiations by the tech companies because you had the local government (in small towns, this is people who work part time making a few thousand dollars per year) negotiating a deal with the Google/xAI/Oracle/etc corporate lawyers. I think it makes sense to say that the buildout should be paused until fairer terms can be worked out on a national level, rather than letting this continue to happen.
Not only steamrolled but, and at the fault of local BOS, hand-tied under NDAs. Nothing will give voters a worse distrust of leadership than being willingly gagged. Oh and in some cases, for personal gain: https://www.richmonder.org/a-chesterfield-employee-who-helpe...
Yea, a lot of the opposition is around these deals being cut at 3:00 in the morning in secret meetings in a shady, smoke-filled room, deliberately avoiding public input and scrutiny. Even if it's not grift and corruption, it certainly looks like grift and corruption.
>>“- There must be community benefits agreements negotiated transparently with the local community
- Any new datacenters being built cannot raise utility rates
- Some of the revenue generated by the datacenter must be set aside to improve power reliability
- Datacenters must not touch our waterways at all
- Datacenters must be built using union labor”
Deal. This sounds like a great list. I would add, “no property tax breaks”.
Just get the state to pass this as a law and set appropriate enforcement mechanisms and then just let data centers go ham if they meet this criteria?
No more “per community meetings” and municipal haggling (see: corrupting) local governments. Buy the land build the data centers. The municipality can figure out the exact benefits that works for that community from the giant tax coffers.
This seems imminently fair to me.
> - Some of the revenue generated by the datacenter must be set aside to improve power reliability
Note that the utility monopolies are posting record profits.
It was recently announced that Meta was building a DC about 75km from my city that is going to be using ~1.8GW of power.
What I'd like to see from my provincial government is the leadership and foresight to regulate that development in such a way that the waste energy from this DC is used to heat greenhouses in our very cold winters.
That could go a long way to bootstrapping a local greenhouse industry and to improving regional food sovereignty.
That's the kind of stuff that government should be doing. They stand at the intersection between all the various stakeholders and they handle the big levers that can force / coordinate them into doing things that increase value and quality of life for the people that elected them.
Florida passed a state law that has standards are somewhat close to what you wrote, yet communities down here still voted to ban datacenter construction.
The industry has shredded its reputation, and now it needs to earn it back to get what they want.
Why must this be done at the federal(I presume what you mean when you say national) level? Seems to me, this should be up to the local community, if they want a datacenter or not.
But I am in general for decentralisation and democracy.
> A lot of the communities that had datacenters built in them ended up getting steamrolled in negotiations by the tech companies because you had the local government (in small towns, this is people who work part time making a few thousand dollars per year) negotiating a deal with the Google/xAI/Oracle/etc corporate lawyers.
I think the immediately preceding sentence pretty clearly laid out their rational. (Not saying I agree or disagree, just that I think your question was already answered).
> The rules he suggests are
Add effective enforcement with harsh penalties for "ask for forgiveness rather than permission" behavior. We've been on this ride too many times not to know what to expect.
I worked for a lab that was building a new computer room and it spent about a year in the permitting process with the local town council before getting approved. Most of the focus in that process was on the geothermal cooling system.
I don't think people are a ignorant or provincial as people here are suggesting.
Broadly, the people in areas with datacenters understand that AI is leading to a loss of control and concentration in power and money. A lot of people in these rural areas have been on the receiving end of this sort of screw job for generations. Their skepticism is earned, and the way our field has tried to ram these projects through with what I will try to gently call a "ship it" ethos has not helped.
This is probably a healthy reset for the field overall, and for the country. A number of the leadership of these companies have seemed to develop manifest destiny or messiah complexes that are offputting to most people. Polling data supports this.
It's a local problem., but it's not just a local problem.
Seeing multiple data centers sprouting up all over rural Ohio on a recent drive across the state was quite jarring. All of a sudden there are like ten massive cranes and a dozen huge turbines sitting in the middle of a field of corn and soy. It may me understand a lot better why people in the area hate them.
Especially when coupled with electricity rates basically doubling since the buildout started.
I like a lot of what El-Sayed has said about AI, but he's kind of disingenuous here. If you add enough rules like that, nothing's ever going to get built.
"If we're not allowed to build datacenters without screwing over the local community, then we won't build datacenters!"
Er... I mean, if that's the case, then, fine, I guess?
I do not believe that this is actually the case. People build heavily regulated industrial facilities all the time.
Then maybe it shouldn’t be built
Then maybe he should say that if that's what he thinks.
I think he's perfectly fine with you (and everyone else with a functioning brain) to take the very simple logical leap to infer that if they can't meet the list of requirements for building, then they should not build.
But you want him to come out and say something that he doesn't believe (and has personally contradicted): that he's opposed to data centers as a point of principle, because you're ideologically convinced that that is his viewpoint, because to you that's the only reason someone would put up any type of roadblock to data center build-outs.
These are not different from normal nimbyism. Me demanding that before any housing can be built near me it should benefit ME, all is potential negatives like traffic are mitigated, it must be built extra expensively, etc. Is just bog standard nimbyism and why housing is not getting built.
No, unless it's data center owners trying to ban new data centers, it's not the same at all.
It is the same. Do you think those people who voted against data centers aren't using Cloud services, AI, services hosted on AWS, etc.
They want the data centers, just NIMBY.
>Do you think those people who voted against data centers aren't using Cloud services, AI, services hosted on AWS, etc.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/036/647/Scr...
>They want the data centers, just NIMBY.
Perhaps it's just you, because the votes say otherwise. Housing NIMBYism is people who already have homes preventing new ones from being built, for their own benefit (Price increases on existing stock). That's not what's happening with data centers.
Yes, I want the datacenter just not in my backyard. Of all buildings, a datacenter is the most amenable to being put somewhere else. Maybe we can have it nearby if corp tells us what they're bringing to the table, but if the answer is nothing, go somewhere else or bring something better. What's the problem?
Any real estate regulation can be labeled as NIMBYism. You're invoking it here as a thought-terminating cliché.
Building without considering consequences at all, or building the way that capital demands, is how you end up with urban communities getting obliterated by highways[1], or rural communities getting decimated by industrial plants[2], or indigenous communities getting destroyed by military testing[3], or indigenous people AND fragile ecosystems getting erased by military testing[4].
Edit: formattingNot really. The regulation where everyone has to meet the same long term, unbiased standard on noise, emissions whatever, while it can also be excessive, is different from the regulation where to make use of your private property you have to follow the whims of whoever has the power. Why would data centers need to be built using union labor when there's no such requirement for anything else? In the old days you needed to placate the whims of a king to be granted the right to use your own property, now you need to placate a union boss or some design review bureaucrat.
The key aspect of NIMBY isn't even in the acronym. The key aspect is the implication that it _is_ something that's wanted, just not here.
Being a NIMBY is wanting affordable housing... somewhere else.
Being a NIMBY is wanting more homeless shelters... somewhere else.
Yes, I'm a NIMBY. Someone want to build more houses, maybe that's good, but the roads need to be scaled up to match. Want to build a datacenter, ok but what's in it for me? The people long-term invested in a town are the ones who should be making decisions on how to develop it, not someone coming in from the outside to make a buck.
There's a balance too. The way to increase my home value is not to say no to absolutely everything.
> isn't against them being built but thinks that there need to be rules in place so the communities that they're being built in actually benefit from them
Welcome to NIMBY
More "Not in any backyard until deal structures are guaranteed to respect the gross asymmetry of participants, but at that point reasonable so let's establish those structure guarantees with federal leverage sooner than later"
In other words, welcome to NIABUDSAGTTYGAOP, BATPESLETSGWFLSTL
But I get how that's not as fun to engage with for pithy internet rhetoric.
As a California resident, this is like Deja Vu.
“Nono, I’m not NIMBY, I just want to set up some goalposts that I can arbitrarily move whenever I want. I just want veto power. Trust me, I’ll use it responsibly”
Decades of no housing follows
I just accept that I'm NIMBY. It's a good thing.
Welcome to people having a say in what gets built in their neighborhoods.
Yes this is exactly what NIMBYs who want to prevent new housing from existing say. And preventing people in a community from having a day in what gets built in their neighborhoods is precislely what state level YIMBY laws in California are intended to do.
We are all NIMBY when we get the results we want.
We hate NIMBYs when others get what they want.
That’s life I guess.
No taxation without representation. Controversial in 2026!
> Any new datacenters being built cannot raise utility rates
DCs do not raise utility rates, utility companies raise rates in response to demand, but aside from that nitpick there is a bigger problem here. If the DC is not connected to the grid then the DC is going to generate power on its own, using inefficient (due to the small scale) and polluting systems (e.g. turbine generators).
If you actually want to address the utility bill impacts of DCs, you should require them to pay the local community. We have a similar arrangement for oil drilling -- to avoid a situation where companies pile onto oil fields and put derricks up on every property, we instead have the companies pay people who own the land above the oil being extracted and that is why Beverly Hills is such a wealthy neighborhood. Give money to the local community in proportion to the electricity consumed by the data center.
Frankly we should require DCs to pay even more when they are not attached to the grid to discourage pollution.
> Datacenters must not touch our waterways at all
...at all? Not even with a connection to the local water utility? That would mean there cannot even be a toilet in the building.
Data centers are industrial operations and should be treated as such -- I do not know of any other industry where this kind of absolute isolation from the local community is being called for, and there are plenty of concerns about industrial water use beyond data centers.
> utility companies raise rates in response to demand,
That's less than a half truth.
Here's the full version:
Utility companies raise rates in order to build new power plants for the sole use and benefit of a single big biz customer who demands that all pay for the new plants his big biz needs.
This is like saying "tech employees don't raise rents, landlords raise rents in response to tech employees offering their fat salaries" - it's a distinction without a difference and the end result is what people object to.
OK, let's take that example. It is true -- landlords are responsible for raising rents, and they do so in response to demand for housing. In some places, landlords are not allowed to arbitrarily raise rents -- for example, by limiting rent increases to follow the CPI. In theory you could regulate utility rates to insulate communities from the impact of DCs and other industrial operations.
Like I said, it is a nitpick and there are bigger problems here.
> you could regulate utility rates to insulate communities from the impact of DCs and other industrial operations.
Yes, that's what the politicians in question are proposing.
This reminds me of the short-form video (Daily Show?) I saw recently of a man in a red hat insisting that the government should facilitate union workers increasingly gaining ownership of the companies and corporations they work for.
You know, like workers seizing the means of production.
But then in the next breath condemning the concept of socialism. But probably because JD Vance himself has redefined socialism to mean forcing girls to play with boys in sports.
Kevin Oleary's data center is going to be built one hour from my town. A lot of people here seem upset about it but when I talk to them I can't get a single good reason to oppose the data center. Here's what I hear and my response:
"It'll use too much water." - It's going to use less water than the farm that used to run on this land. The county is gaining water from this.
"Our electrical bills will go up" - They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid
"Noise" - It's an hour away from any structure on a stinky swamp north of the Salt Lake
"Wildlife refuge" - This bird refuge is in Brigham City. The data center will be on the opposite end of the county. Some people seem to think it's right next door.
My concern is I don't want tax payers left holding the bag if this falls apart but it seems like, at least with this DC, that that's not the case. This is going to bring a LOT of money to my county which sorely needs it and a LOT of people to my dying rural town.
I really just have to come to the conclusion that we have a tiktok informed voting block here. I've had people ask me if I'm worried that the new data center will spy on me. What?
Edit: I checked. This is going to use 162 million less gallons per year than the farm.
> They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid
Generating their own electricity how? I would be pissed if I got one of these xAI power turbines near my area [1]. And even if they weren't loud, gas plants are environmentally bad.
> They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid
Electricity prices will go up! The data centers won't keep generate their own electricity if they aren't forced to. They will just take electricity from the grid when it's cheaper than generating, and will start generating only when the costs of generating are lower.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/musks-ai-power-plant-ge...
They're using natural gas to generate electricity. Everyone involved has said that it won't pull power from the grid. But if it does that's a good thing. That means we'll need to expand our grid. We're currently building a nuclear reactor in my county as well. This is economic growth and a good thing. My town is dying. Main street is depressing. There's a general lack of optimism in the people here.
This is exactly the argument people are worried about. "If prices go up, it's a good thing." For whom? Residents will have to pay this for a decade before a nuclear reactor comes online.
“Let’s stop all new economic activity as it might have an effect on <insert commodity> prices” is just so juvenile and poorly thought through.
That's a reductive take in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. Of course people will resist commercial developments that'll increase the cost of one of the most essential resources everyone uses day-to-day for the sake of shareholder value.
> That's a reductive take in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. Of course people will resist commercial developments that'll increase the cost of one of the most essential resources everyone uses day-to-day
Your argument conveniently ignores that electricity is tiny fraction of the average American's budget, which is far more heavily weighted toward housing, gas, and groceries. This argument is extremely tenuous.
> for the sake of shareholder value
This is emotionally manipulative and without substance. Data centers are being built because there's demand for them from people who want to use AI, like me. These data centers drive down the cost of AI, which is valuable to me, and to society. The fact that it also happens to increase "shareholder value" is irrelevant.
> Your argument conveniently ignores that electricity is tiny fraction
You assume people's psychological resistance to increased cost is entirely based on the proportional impact of those cost increases. Yes, housing/gas/groceries are much larger portions of the increase in cost, but datacenters are much more visible than poor foreign policy or starting new conflicts with overseas energy producers. Also, electricity traditionally has much less cost variation than gas/housing/groceries.
> This is emotionally manipulative and without substance. Data centers are being built because there's demand for them from people who want to use AI, like me.
At my company's internal conference we had a rep from one of our partners come speak, and he emphasized that a significant value-add of our company's relationship to our partners is that we're much more tech-forward. he went on to say "Execs in [partner industry] don't know what AI is or what it does, but they know that they want it."
We're seeing AI features being bolted into every application under the sun, whether it actually adds functionality or not. I think you bear a significant burden of proof to the claim that the demand for datacenters is in turn driven by consumer demand for AI, and company boards losing their minds over what they think AI can do and demanding their R&D divisions sink millions of dollars into AI spend to try and capitalize on their dreams.
I'm reminded of Bitcoin: for a hot minute every startup was talking about blockchain and GPUs were getting snapped up by miners left and right because of what people imagined the value could be. That's what I'm getting at when I say "shareholder value:" these developments seem to be less about what value a company is _actually_ producing (& thus the inherent cost-of-goods-sold demand), and more about the _possibility_ of what value a company _could_ produce.
> You assume people's psychological resistance to increased cost is entirely based on the proportional impact of those cost increases. Yes, housing/gas/groceries are much larger portions of the increase in cost, but datacenters are much more visible than poor foreign policy or starting new conflicts with overseas energy producers. Also, electricity traditionally has much less cost variation than gas/housing/groceries.
This is a good point. I see that I misunderstood your original argument - I thought you were claiming that the increase was going to be financially meaningful, rather than what you actually said, which was the perception of and response to the increase. My apologies. Thank you for your thoughtful response!
> I thought you were claiming that the increase was going to be financially meaningful
tbf, I didn't state the psychological thesis up front either :)
> Data centers are being built because there's demand for them from people who want to use AI, like me
No they aren't
They're being built so shareholders can profit off of people like you. The fact that you benefit from it does not actually factor in any way aside from the fact that you will pay them for that benefit
They aren't benevolently trying to help you out, they just want your money.
The fact that you want AI and think it will help you and society is actually what is irrelevant. If they weren't confident it would make them money it would not be built no matter how beneficial it would be.
>> Data centers are being built because there's demand for them from people who want to use AI, like me
> No they aren't
You literally said they are building data centers to cater to demand later on in your own comment:
> If they weren't confident it would make them money it would not be built
There you go. Your own point debunked by your own words.
> They aren't benevolently trying to help you out
I didn't say anything about the owners building stuff out of charity or benevolence. Are you responding to the wrong comment? Yours is more-or-less irrelevant to mine in addition to being self-contradictory.
Come on bud. You claimed
> The fact that it (building data centers) also happens to increase "shareholder value" is irrelevant
It's not irrelevant. It is the primary reason they are being built
Your understanding about the cause and effect around why data centers are being built is completely backwards
Please own up to the fact that you self-contradicted yourself in your own comment by first claiming that "No they aren't" and then "If they weren't confident it would make them money it would not be built".
> It's not irrelevant. It is the primary reason they are being built
...and without any implications, that fact is irrelevant. Do you understand what relevance means? It means that there's meaning, implication. You haven't given a single follow-on implication from that hypothesis that actually matters to the discussion.
> Your understanding about the cause and effect around why data centers are being built is completely backwards
No, this is just factually false.
Fact: for datacenters, without market demand, without a buyer, shareholder value cannot possibly be generated.
So, first there is a market, and then companies act on it to generate shareholder value.
You're living in a world detached from reality where "shareholder value" exists as its own separate entity that can generate market demand.
You need to take a high-school level economics course so that you don't make objectively incorrect statements like this.
> and without any implications, that fact is irrelevant
If you think people's motivations are irrelevant then we just live in different worlds, and there's no point continuing
future economic activity is fine;
the questions are 1) who is footing the bill and 2) who is benefiting from that economic activity
if it's not the local community, then why should they agree to it much less pay for some of it
If that new economic activity has lopsided benefits and will never pay off for those negatively impacted by those price increases, then yeah shut it down or regulate it so that the benefits are shared equally by all. Shorter version, if the new economic activity is exploitive of people and their communities, then shut it down hard.
People are tired of New Economic Activity that only benefits the already-rich.
If I get a vote about new economic activity, and it makes me personally poorer, I'm going to need a very good argument as to why I should permit it. Or, you know, pay me.
If the data centers hadn't been _quite_ so hostile to absolutely all their critics and instead had simply offered to pay for some local schools or libraries or something, at like 5% of the cost of the data center, this would have gone differently.
Instead Altman says it will destroy the world: https://www.techradar.com/pro/quote-of-the-day-by-sam-altman...
So it's bad for the world according to its proponents, and at the same time, a bad neighbour? Why would anyone not vote against it given those?
I mean, if the new economic activity primarily serves to further enrich the wealthy then ya, that seems like a reasonable stance.
Generally, economic activity is supposed to raise living standards. AI promisses to a.) speed up climate change b.) facilitate surveillance and authoritarian tech bros b.) make people obsolete and unemployable c.) kill us all because reasons.
Datacenter is not bringing more economic activity to the area.
It will accelerate the shift to solar for residential purposes.
That’s a great thing.
everyone gets a better grid.
Sure, but who pays for it?
If the data center which requires the grid improvements is fully paying for the upgrades, I'm OK with it. OTOH, if they expect to fob off the cost of the otherwise-optional upgrade on the rest of the ratepayers, Fck-NO!
And for those who say "but it benefits the rest of the ratepayers, so they should pay too", NO! If you (person or corp) come in and demand we change something, you should be a net benefit for everyone, not just yourself.
Be a good citizen and help everyone, and you'll find support. Don't, and find people see you as an asshat and you'll find opposition.
If we brought them up a decade earlier we wouldn’t have had to wait. Instead, we were told “renewables can replace fossil fuels”, despite us lacking the battery capacity to make them viable for the grid. Nuclear is a direct replacement for fossil fuels with better energy generation and actual on-demand capabilities, plus it’s far safer than fossil fuel-backed media will admit. We could have been using both and have completely cut down on emissions while also increasing the lifetime of our nuclear stores.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
For that little old retired lady who is on a fixed income, of course! It means she'll have to sell that cute little house of hers and let someone turn it into an AirBnB and make some actual money from it.
/s
Did you know that global average temperatures are the highest they've been in 125,000 years, and temperatures are rising more than 20x faster than natural rates of global warming. Also the oceans are 30% more acidic, and the world's land ice is melting at a rate of like 660 billion tons per year. There's probably around 7% more water vapor in the atmosphere because warmer air holds more moisture and warmer water evaporates more quickly. Fire seasons are getting longer and more intense. Etc etc
Did you know that US produces 30% less carbon than it did in 2004? Even when adjusted for trade, carbon emissions continue to trend down since the early 2000s (absolute terms, not even per capita)
https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/united-states
https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
Ok that's nice, but it's not enough and now you want to add a bunch of natural gas power plants? Is that going to increase or decrease geenhouse gas emissions?
Are you arguing we did good so now we can cheat a little bit and have some ice cream? Like someone falling off the wagon on their diet.
Imagine we focused this anti-DC energy on things that actually have material impacts, like meat consumption and air conditioning.
I'd imagine it's something like each American eating half as many cheeseburgers a year would offset all current and projected emissions from DC energy usage.
Ok if you can talk Americans into eating half as many cheeseburgers I'll stop complaining about data centers. Seems realistic.
...so building that nuclear reactor would be a good thing since it will emit far less carbon than those natural gas generators (not to mention all the other pollution that nuclear plants do not emit). Hook the DC up to the grid and expand nuclear power to simultaneously accommodate the load and decommission fossil fuel plants. Wins all around.
Slow to build, capital intensive. I would have loved a large build out of nuclear 30 years ago. Even now if you get one online more power to you. I just don't see it ever being a major part of the solution now. It's time came and went.
OK, fine, but the DC construction cannot start until the nuclear plant is online.
(now you have two planning permission problems!)
Indeed and frankly we are way behind schedule on building nuclear plants, mostly because of irrational fears about nuclear power safety.
But what about this guy's small town with a population of under 10k????????
Put your money where your mouth is.
You go first sacrifice yourself, the finances of your family and your town, in order to save the global environment, to set an example, and we'll start to follow your lead when we'll see that your sacrifice has improved the global environment.
It's always convenient for you when someone else has to make sacrifices to their job security, housing, financial future, and comfort in order to save the environment, when you get to enjoy all the perks of their sacrifice, without needing to make any equivalent sacrifices yourself.
Sorry, your small town getting a short stint of construction work followed by maybe 20 sysadmins, is not worth the pollution that DC will pump.
I commute by rail to the tune of ~6000 miles a year. How long would it take for those gas turbines to make those greenhouse savings worth it?
Some napkin math, lets say a conservative 50MW/day? half what the XAI Colossus DC uses. So they'd be generating about 2MWh running 24/7.
Those gas turbines spit out ~700kg of CO2 per MWh.
My car would emit about 5 tonnes of CO2 over about 15k miles(2L hatchback).
The drive is far less direct than the train, so lets call it approximately 10k miles in commuting.
In a day, one of those gas turbines would produce about 16.8 metric tons of CO2. Over 3x what my car would produce. In a day. It takes me all year to save 4ish metric tons of CO2 from my personal carbon emissions.
Yeah, so screw your small town and screw the datacenter. We all share this world. Your small town isn't worth the damage.
Seems like this can go both ways. You should volunteer to have a bank of loud, polluting turbines from obsolete passenger jets running 24/7 next to your home so Meta can serve GenAI ads with 5% lower latency.
Only if you subscribe to the logic that somehow I support datacenters built in peoples' back yards, which I never claimed, but you made up. If you make stuff up, you can make any argument you want.
> But if it does that's a good thing. That means we'll need to expand our grid.
Your other points are generally very well-thought-out, but this one is not.
Grid expansions take years. Building new nuclear power plants takes decades. And there's "slack" in the sense that utility prices can raise substantially before there's actually impetus to start planning a grid expansion, and then you still have to wait years for construction to finish.
And the party that takes the hit for those sustained elevated electricity prices is local residents, who in general have far less capital and are disproportionally hurt by it relative to the owns of the data centers.
You can make the argument that the electricity price increases are going to be lower than most people think and wouldn't meaningfully hurt the average local resident, but that's a separate argument. I don't buy that "if it pulls power from the grid that's a good thing" is valid.
If there isn't enough power to meet demand, then build out the grid first, or tax datacenter power consumption so that the inflection pain-point before grid capacity expands is less harmful to the residents.
If building a gas turbine for the data center can be done quickly, then building a gas turbine to expand grid capacity can be done just as quickly. (Barring any poorly thought out, unprincipled regulations that would affect one but not the other.)
Good point.
Now, I'd argue that building has turbines have negative environmental effects, but that's a separate matter.
It sounds like your town needs a monorail! Well, sir, there's nothing on earth like a genuine, bona fide, electrified, six-car monorail!
> They're using natural gas to generate electricity. Everyone involved has said that it won't pull power from the grid. But if it does that's a good thing. That means we'll need to expand our grid.
Everyone involved will lie in exchange for money. Put it in writing, make it legally binding, and then maybe I would believe them. They haven't done that, have they? Also, who do you think pays for expanding your grid?
> They're using natural gas to generate electricity.
Yep. And that will decrease air quality locally, which is especially bad for people with asthma or other sensitivities. And increases greenhouse gases globally. And this natural gas generator will probably be less efficient than a normal power plant.
> This is economic growth and a good thing.
Not much. Sure, there will be some construction jobs while it is being built, but after that, there won't be many jobs for the DC. And there is a good chance the jobs that will exist won't go to local residents. And the owners of the DC aren't going to be buying much if anything from the local community.
> Everyone involved has said that it won't pull power from the grid. But if it does that's a good thing. That means we'll need to expand our grid.
What on earth is this "If I get in a car accident, it's actually a good thing because I get to buy a new, better car" logical reasoning?
Using electricity is not breaking anything. "If I sell all my widgets, it's actually a good thing because I'll have to hire more people and manufacture more widgets" is entirely coherent.
Using electricity to the point that the grid cannot accommodate it is indeed breaking something that was working before, and the data center folks are surely not going to be the only ones paying for the infrastructure improvements needed to accommodate it.
It'd be like your widget maker harvesting wood for their widgets from public land and exhausting it so the public is left without this resource, then expecting the public to pay to arrange for more wood to be grown to replace the wood they used up.
And the DC will employ, what, 20 people long-term? It’s not a factory.
Yes, which is why the smart way to do it would be to allow it but make sure it brings in plenty of tax revenue.
(Farms don’t employ many people either.)
> (Farms don’t employ many people either.)
I can't eat the output of a data center, though.
You don’t eat the output of most US farms either unless you subsist on field corn, soybeans, and hay.
Ooo, this is exciting, I so rarely get to be the random dumbass crawling out of the woodwork to provide a statistically-unlikely counterexample to an otherwise sound point!
I've been really enjoying eating soybeans. Absurdly good source of protein (yes, even for a bean), dirt cheap, decent source of fiber and a bunch of minerals, and pretty easy to just drop in a pressure cooker and eat however you like once it comes out.
Can't say I eat a lot of field corn or hay though.
I do, however, eat the things that eat those. Or byproducts (milk, cheese, etc) from them.
The point is that something tangible is produced.
We'll bring in buckets of money in taxes. Not to mention the nuclear power plant being built in response to the DC.
> We'll bring in buckets of money in taxes
Got any hard numbers on the tax revenue? I am skeptical because typically these projects receive tax payer money.
> Not to mention the nuclear power plant being built in response to the DC
A nuclear power plant takes 6-10 years to build in the US, and sometimes even longer.
> Got any hard numbers on the tax revenue?
According to the county FAQ: https://www.boxeldercountyut.gov/661/Stratos-Page-FAQ-Page
> What tax revenue is expected?
> In Phase One, the county expects to receive $30 million in annual tax revenue. When fully built out, it could generate up to $108 million every year.
"Expects" to receive is weasle-y. How much will they receive?
"Could" generate 108 million a year
Naw man. These numbers need to be more concrete upfront. This sounds like "under ideal conditions (that we won't ever achieve)" weasling
Why bringing in buckets in taxes, is it owned by a local company? That, or one of us is misunderstanding how taxes work.
Data centers and almost all big companies don’t bring in any taxes. They negotiate zero property taxes for 30 years and have govts pay them money, because they say the half dozen people they employ are going to create a boom in the economy, they will buy houses, eat out, go to bars and this will create money for the local govt and property taxes.
The bucket of money is from the food truck, the only business that can be sustainable from a DC in the local area. The food truck is cash only, because they payment company now charges 50% because they are using AI to counter the spam and fraud from the other companies using AI.
Taxes are assessed at multiple levels. Property taxes go to the municipality.
$108 million annually in property tax?
> My town is dying. Main street is depressing.
And the data center will probably contribute to it dying faster. It'll produce only a handful of permanent local jobs, and the long term economic output will largely be for rich companies who won't be in your town. Even tax revenue will be tiny because of the exemptions they give it.
Who is paying for the natural gas pipeline extension? Who is upgrading the upstream supply to manage the extra demand?
I was with you for a while here but you say nobody has an argument, then when someone presents one you say that actually that bad thing is a good thing because we'll react to the bad thing in a good way.
Cool, then there’s no reason it should be built. Building net new fossil fuel burning infrastructure to power data centers is civilizational suicide.
Ok. Then natural gas prices will go up, and everyone who heats with natural gas will see their heating bill rise.
Gosh I sure am glad natural gas isn't a major fuel for grid-based generation, and under contention with residential heating. If that were the case, all that extra demand on a limited resource could drive prices up.
Now you could argue that billionaires, their investors and loan sharks should be allowed to buy up gas —perfectly legal— but it's actively screwing up people's lives.
A nearby town was doing pretty well. Then suddenly on a ton of visible land were built either RV/boat storage places or u-store places. The town feels aweful. Lots of those people able to are moving away because the town just feels bad now. That one move dramatically changed that towns direction/future forever.
I don't know about this one in particular, but generally data centers seem to be moving to nuclear energy for power generation.
Not in practice they're not. They want to. But can you actually link to any data centers powered by new nuclear reactors?
There has been a lot of talk about investment/plans for microreactors -- but have any been approved, much less gone into operation?
AFAIK recent data centers are all either:
1. connected to the existing grid, or
2. using natural gas generators
Nuclear plants take over a decade to build. Data centers take a few months or years. New nuclear isn't going to power any data centers for a long, long time.
We are also building a nuclear power plant in the county. I'm excited for the growth that's going to bring. The other reply to this comment is uneducated. Nuclear is incredibly safe.
Generally, where?
Oh, good. Those will definitely be run safely. /s
Maybe these companies can't prevent their own bots from escaping containment and breaching others' systems, but nuclear is surely easier -- and if there's any issue, superintelligence can mitigate the damage.
By the time any of these nuclear plants come online, The current deferred tech debt apocalypse will have played out. The market is efficient, but the efficiency is very weak. This is no exception.
These seem to be very specific to this project, and I doubt the majority of DC projects are like this one, an hour away with its own gas turbines to generate power and plenty of water available.
There also seems to be a Utah-specific bill from last year requiring large electricity users to pay the additional infrastructure and power-supply costs attributable to serving them rather than shifting those costs onto existing utility customers. This is also not the case everywhere DCs are being built.
I hear that a lot and I'm happy with my county for making sure we get a good deal out of this. I think a lot of people are informed by the few bad cases and think that all DCs are going to do this.
They are building gas turbines to power it.
You aren't getting a good deal.
The project that just failed near me in WY was setup to be very similar.
> They're generating their own electricity
Yeah, from natgas right? Or maybe diesel generators? Or are they building one of the practically nonexistent green energy data centers?
Natural gas. I suppose my gas bill could go up
What about emissions from the generation of this power in salt lake valley? I believe a big argument was the valley with its inversions and geographical layout makes that pollution much worse for people who live in it.
This DC will be probably a 3 hour drive from the Salt Lake valley. We're building a nuclear power plant as well which is going to help with pollution.
Ultimately we can't stop Oleary from building this. It's his legal right to do what he wants with his property. I'm just happy we're getting such a good deal out of this.
> Ultimately we can't stop Oleary from building this. It's his legal right to do what he wants with his property.
When there is political will we can absolutely restrict people from doing things with their property. This is the entire premise of zoning laws among other regulations.
Whether the political will in your specific case has reached that point is another issue, but in many cases it seems to be approaching that level, especially where existing or proposed developments seem like they will directly impact the community that's already there.
Voters can absolutely regulate emissions, land use, etc.
The nuclear power plant will only help with pollution if it replaces existing fossil fuel use. If it just meets growing demand, pollution persists, and if growing demand is also filled by some fossil fuels then pollution increases, but just a bit slower because of the nuclear.
Also, if you want to leave a livable planet for your kids...
And there it is, folks. That is the key issue here - or at least, one of them. This new data center would pollute the environment, not to mention taking up land. The consideration, then, is whether the need for yet another data center justifies the added pollution and land use. That’s a value judgment, and it seems a lot of people say no, we don’t need more data centers, not even for “AI” - at least not enough to justify the added pollution.
You seem worried about your bills. But what about the effect on the environment? People on HN are supposed to be into engineering, so what about the trade offs? That’s the discussion to have.
And your pollution levels.
I think the problem is that they don't control what happens next. The whole premise of AI data center buildouts is basically, "We think we can replace you with a robot so we'll be able to make even more money." So, even if _this data center in particular_ is okay, it's just like saying, "Well, we haven't driven over the cliff yet, so why are you complaining?"
Worse is that there's every evidence that AI is actually just a waste of money, but because there's so much investment in it, we'll all get to lose our jobs when it flops anyway. In the long-term it's just a lose/lose for everyone, and I think people are starting to figure that out. There's general mistrust, because the investors and the implementers are not trustworthy.
Thank you for being one of the few thoughtful responses. I do feel like people's opinions here are more a position on AI in general than this data center. I come from a stance of, "this is happening so we might as well benefit from it"
Well yes. If a car window gets broken in your town, well that's a simple crime. But if entire parking lots full of cars get their windows broken out that's a crime spree and resources need setup in dealing with it.
The issue with incremental problems and quantity problems is you can't point at a single one and go "here, here is the problem" (at least most of the time), you have to look at the entire problem and go "Shit, the paperclip maximizer building one paperclip isn't an issue, it's turning everything into paperclips that's the issue".
And that's where we are.
Ah, but what if you could automate smashing every car window in the city? That would really drive profit to your autoglass business!
(ghost of Bastiat laughs in the distance)
> "Our electrical bills will go up" - They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid
I don't buy this. they're generating electricity for free? the electricity generation comes from somewhere and it has a cost due to any resource used being finite; who is bearing that cost?
> This is going to bring a LOT of money to my county
in what ways, concretely, once the DC has been built (likely with outside contractors)? it doesn't take much to run one. typically DCs have large tax breaks and so don't actually bring in "a LOT of money to the local county" -- that's one of the problems that people are upset about; your DC might be an exception
How are they generating this electricity without competing for resources generally?
There is also the increase in cost of borrowing for everyone. Going this fast is just insane.
I recall hearing an interview with a democratic politician (can't recall who), he had this thing: data centres need to BYONCE (Bring Your Own New Clean Energy). This seems pretty reasonable to me, if the data centres pay for any build-out of the grid required for their operation and bring online green energy, then they are fine. For the community, worst case they go bust and leave behind an improved grid. Off-grid gas generators are not BYONCE.
>data centres need to BYONCE (Bring Your Own New Clean Energy)
This is just another way of saying "no data centers can be built". The people who want to build data centers don't care what it's powered by, but they choose gas turbines over wind & solar because renewables can't handle the power demands.
That seems like an awfully defeatist attitude. With all the capital investment flowing into AI, there should be plenty of money to research and improve renewables (including fusion, fission, and battery technology) to meet the moment. After all, we need to move past fossil fuels and are already delayed on this path, so AI is a good catalyst (among many) to make progress.
On a meta-level, it's terrible politics for tech companies to roll out a technology that many don't see a need for and fear will take away their livelihood, while at the same time increasing CO2 emissions because renewables are too hard. Of course this course of action runs into massive opposition.
If the concern is non-localized resource or debt contention how is it different from any business?
I get generalized anxiety about pace of progress, but then let’s have that discussion rather than the canards about water or noise (which can be real in some cases, but taking GP at their word that’s not the case here).
> how is it different from any business?
This is the crux. It's different because data centers are illegally operating gas turbines. If CVS were playing loud music all night every night, nobody would doubt the ability of local law enforcement to shut it down. That is not true of (specifically) AI data centers, so it is rational to reject them until law enforcement gains the ability to police them.
Everyone has their own issue with this, it seems, but the majority has some issue.
Someone with more knowledge than my 2-minutes of googling should correct me, but...
It sounds like they'd be using the natural gas pipeline they would generate from starts in Opal, Wyoming (goes all the way to Oregon), and that the company behind it was in huge amounts of debt and filed Chapter 11 a few years ago.
So at a glance, I'm curious if making it profitable might be helpful to everyone, but would need someone with more info to chime in before I could say that.
Natural gas which is abundant and cheap. I suppose I could see my gas bill going up.
And you don't see any problem with burning more natural gas?
> What do you want the county to do? We can't tell someone that it's illegal to use their land. This is happening. I'm happy that we're getting a good deal out of it.
You were asking for good reason against the data centers - I would imagine not being complicit in the detrimental effects caused by burning exorbitant amounts of fossils for electricity could be one of them.
Advancing civilization will require increasing energy use, yes. That's always been the long-term trend of development.
How is that working out environmentally?
I think people would be more open to the data center buildout if the data center projects built their own clean energy infrastructure
Great. Long term, environmental deaths have greatly decreased: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/natural-disasters-deaths?...
Advancing civilization to what temperature?
The problem is that anyone who actually cares about such thing has like a dozen better venues to deal with it than data centers, yet they haven't in their lives thought of a single one.
What are you talking about? Why shouldn't we be opposed to all new use of fossil fuels?
What do you want the county to do? We can't tell someone that it's illegal to use their land. This is happening. I'm happy that we're getting a good deal out of it.
We can certainly tell people it's illegal to emit pollution into the air.
>We can't tell someone that it's illegal to use their land
We the voters 100% can.
It's literally illegal to build apartments almost everywhere.
Do you think this is good?
No
What are you talking about? We can and do tell people what they can and can't do with their land all the time. That's what zoning laws do.
Incremental use of more NG is a terrible idea. We have to get off of fossil fuels, not use even more, especially for this
The county is currently building a nuclear power plant
Then the DC should surely help fund it, and its existence should be dependent in its completion? Otherwise it will be like every other large scale development that offers this without being on the hook.
The nuclear will get delayed. Always does.
Gas turbine generators which were originally designed for temporary use and don't meet the emissions regulations of a power plant?
You live in Snowville?
> They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid
By burning a ton of natural gas. Utah and Idaho both use a decent amount of natural gas for electricity generation. Less of that means that heating and electric costs go up. 9GW is a lot of fuel to burn, it will affect prices.
Otherwise, I generally agree with you. I'm familiar with the area.
The other reason I'd be against it is the air pollution that this will cause, but it won't really affect the surrounding towns as it's at a much lower elevation.
Tremonton. My understanding is they're getting their gas from a Wyoming company that just declared bankruptcy so good for them. The DC will help them out a lot. I look forward to the nuclear plant opening to help with the other concerns.
AFAIK, the reason for the position was to tap into a large national gas line that runs between Utah and Idaho. I'm not sure where the wyoming company would come into play unless they are purchasing the company and resuming extraction operations.
It's all a proxy vote on Big Tech. My town organized against a data center and this is what I saw. People are legitimately frustrated with the tech sector and feel generally powerless to do something about it. But they can vote down data centers in their home town...
> "It'll use too much water." - It's going to use less water than the farm that used to run on this land.
It uses less water than many other things, too, I'm sure.
But the farm made food. What does the data center create that humans need to survive?
I just made a comment about trade offs regarding pollution and land use. This is another good point. Everything is a trade off. If we use a lot of water to get food we need to survive, or even tasty food we enjoy, that’s worth it. But using up a lot of water for a data center, even if it’s less than a farm? That’s still a valid judgment. Lots of people clearly think that’s not worth it as a trade off.
The farm might not have made food and it might not have made food for human consumption, and even if it did make food it might not be the kind we need to survive. Remember that there are plenty of farms that exist to produce ethanol, HFCS, or inputs for beer/whiskey/etc. makers (which we do not actually need -- drinking is fun but hardly necessary for survival).
Cures for genetic abnormalities: https://www.anthropic.com/research/claude-discovers-novel-en...
Discovery of Room-Temperature Antiferromagnetic Semiconductors: https://www.vals.ai/blogs/room-temperature-magnetic-semicond...
Diagnoses of things multiple accomplished doctors could not do: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1kaw3cv/chatgpt_di...
It's okay to just not want or like AI data centers. People don't have to hold a watertight argument against them to oppose them.
And with how secretive a lot of those behind these constructions have been, I think everyone is within their right to crank their cynicism towards data centers to the max.
Sure there are a lot of things I just don't like, but the government really does need to have a real reason to regulate things.
The government is supposed to represent the people, so if enough people don’t like it, then that’s a real reason.
The reason is that a majority of the voters wanted to regulate it.
What a surprise people don’t want massive structures used for shady purposes built by sociopaths, which may or may not use massive amount of power and resources, which may or may not be used to displace the entirety of the labor work force, or destroy what’s left of society to develop better algorithms. To also be built literally in unfathomablr quantities, in almost ever decent piece of land, using unfathomable amounts of money.
Seriously what’s peoples problem?
This is one of those situations where HN is too smart and thinks logic is the same as reality. Life exists outside of computers
The generation component will absolutely increase costs for communities. Those generators are run on Natural Gas which will draw massive demand on constrained pipelines, drastically increasing prices as demand out paces supply. Mark my words, your power costs as a regular consumer will be impacted by the increased demand of Natural Gas from these data centers
This is why it's important for government to be built on principles and law, not merely on popular opinion.
From a principled perspective, your neighbor shouldn't get a vote on what you do with your property, except to the extent that what you're doing directly infringes on their own property rights. (I emphasize directly. Noise is a valid complaint. "You're competing against me in the labor market." is not. "You're increasing demand for water in my area." is debatable.) Reducing the whole thing to a popular vote bypasses any such principles of freedom and instead institutes rule by the tyranny of the majority.
While I agree with where you're coming from in general, the surveillance industry has been happily coasting on downplaying and rejecting such principles for quite some time. Principles like freedom of speech, freedom to own things you purchase, privacy from ever-growing surveillance databases, freedom from unaccountable centralized permissions systems based on those surveillance databases, freedom to use computing technology that serves your own interests, freedom to partake in competitive markets rather than suffering monopolies. That general lack of principles (beyond merely centralized authoritarian control) is now coming home to roost, as people oppose these projects due to some vague sense of a lack of individual agency, but perhaps can't quite articulate why.
If their concerns had been acted on to begin with, most of the existing data centers would never have been built as people would be using computing technology under their own control rather than authoritarian-by-design "cloud" traps. So I have little sympathy for the surveillance industry now that the jig is nearly up.
Why not just build the data center right on Oleary's land, right next to his mansion? He'll create jobs there too.
This land he's building it on is cheap and I look forward to my county using it to advantage everyone. Why do you think you get a say on what happens in my home?
What's your take on the tax exemptions they're getting? Without tax revenue, how will everyone else in your county benefit?
"Why do you think you get a say on what happens in my home?"
also you
* "A lot of people here seem upset about it but when I talk to them I can't get a single good reason to oppose the data center."
* "I really just have to come to the conclusion that we have a tiktok informed voting block here. I've had people ask me if I'm worried that the new data center will spy on me."
First, maybe they don't trust the company doing the development, or Kevin Oleary. What they are saying may or may not be true, but if they've made a habit of being casual with the truth or not following through on their word it doesn't really matter, does it?
That is tough, and it is why it's so important to maintain one's reputation.
Second, I seem to recall Oleary running around to news outlets telling anyone with a camera that the only reason that anyone would oppose the project was if they were somehow working with the PRC and trying to hurt America.
"Why do you think you get a say on what happens in my home?" is a very valid thing you said, and I actually respect it. If, instead, I said something like, "you are just tool of Elon Musk and AI has tricked you" it would probably feel insulting and you would be predisposed be hostile to me.
I think the way the project was done was disrespectful to other people in the area. Ultimately, laws and the voting process will handle it as it should be. If the project can be relied on to bring the benefits without causing the harm that you claim it will, it should be a slam dunk case.
Third, people are concerned about economic security and loss from AI and this specific project can't escape it. Our field has made its own bed there. These concern are valid and public statements by the involved CEOs and large scale layoffs can't be easily dismissed.
Because in Ontario, where his mansion is located, the government hasn't been approving such projects and is facing pressure not to. (https://globalnews.ca/news/12134754/ford-government-to-appro...) Even if the province approved, the lake community surrounding his mansion might not want one, for all the same reasons that the US voters in the source article don't want one.
It's the same reason politicians won't house illegal immigrants in their home.
I guess this is an improvement. In the UK they refuse to have them anywhere inside their constituency.
Is it? What is the reason?
"I support <thing>, but not in my backyard!"
> "It'll use too much water." - It's going to use less water than the farm that used to run on this land. The county is gaining water from this.
So the farm is no longer there? As in it is using zero water right now?
> "Our electrical bills will go up" - They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid
Serious doubt. They will use whichever is cheaper, and that's going to be the grid.
Yes. Oleary bought the farm and there will be no farm there anymore. Using the grid would be good for us too. That's economic growth. There will be short term pain but the increased power use will lead to more jobs. We're already building a nuclear power plant.
Right, so no matter what is done with the land it will be using more water than it currently is.
If we weren't building anything here it would still be a farm using a lot of water. Correct.
Except, of course, that farms use unprocessed water for irrigation and datacenters use treated water for cooling. If the project has its own onsite water treatment, and water rights to the aquifer, then that might be fine, but the majority of these projects expect nearby municipal resources at a scale no farm ever has.
The details are definitely fuzzy when you talk to people. At the same time, the sentiment is fairly solid. People do not like AI. They do like food. A farm may use more water, but people want the output of the farm. They don't want the output of the data centers.
That being said, your part of Utah is definitely one of the places were the arguments break down. The actual food production there is minimal. I'm not sure exactly where you are at, but the northern side of the Salt Lake is fairly desolate, and getting moreso. If there was any place where people would be OK with it, you'd think that would be it.
The natural gas burning is a real concern, though. Utah has massive capacity for solar, and when looking down towards Millard county and south of there, geothermal energy. Setting this up as a natural gas fueled data center is a questionable strategy.
It doesn't matter what their reasons are. It's their community
I get that they have a right to self determination but when did that start meaning others can’t have opinions about (perceived) short sightedness?
Am I allowed to think less of people who vote for stuff like mandatory prayer in schools, even if it is their community and their right to vote for what they want?
It's my community too. My opinion is worth just as much as theirs.
Since data centre projects are getting rammed through at breakneck speed despite very widespread opposition, it might look to others like your opinion is actually worth significantly more than theirs, simply because it happens to be shared by a handful of people with god tier money.
I agree. So hold the vote. You won't like the result.
Hence why it’s on the ballots.
huh, seeing confederate talking points in this thread was not on my bingo card
Thinking that people should decide if an infrastructure megaproject of dubious utility to their community should be built? Basically identical to thinking that people should decide what races live in their community and whether slavery is allowed.
The HN crashout over people suddenly disliking hyperscalers for some reason is something you could only witness here.
A community is not a sovereign nation. I know that eminent domain is considered by many (and historically rightly so) to be a dirty tool, but sometimes it really is in the benefit of the country and its economy to build things even if the people living in or around that area don't like it, especially if their only reason to resisting is "I don't like it".
Fine, let them go through eminent domain. I'll wait.
> "Noise" - It's an hour away from any structure on a stinky swamp north of the Salt Lake
A major noise concern is the infrasound, which could be a problem even an hour away, since it travels further than regular noise
Not as bad as a center actually inside a community/neighbourhood, of course, but still, probably worth an actual impact study or the like and not just "it'll be fine"
The natural gas they are burning is being bought from the market and that will more than likely lead to increased natural gas costs.
Only valid point I've heard. We'll see what happens. All I'm saying is the DC is happening. We can't stop it. That'd be illegal. At least we're getting a good deal out of it.
What does the farm grow? Is it less valuable than what the data center will produce? Because you can't eat data. Utah is full of empty spaces that aren't being put to use (except maybe to set land speed records). Why not use those?
As a Coloradoan I'd be for it since it would save a little water from the Colorado River.
Also as a Coloradoan, if I was a climate denier, I'd be for it since the pollution from its natural gas generators would dissipate before it got to me. But in a state that "has the solar potential to provide all of the electricity used in the United States" doesn't it seem a little ridiculous to use natural gas?
That also helps ease the concerns about tax payers left holding the bag. What do you want to be left with, a few extra watts of solar or a bunch of natural gas generators that wouldn't really be useful?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Utah
If we're talking about the proposed data center near Brigham City, the area is not part of the Colorado River watershed, so the data center would affect other systems but not the Colorado River.
Haha cool. I am firmly against this data-center then. /s
The joke there is that states can't agree to a thing about that watershed and also don't seem to look beyond it when they are making rules. That apparently includes my own tunnel vision.
As a resident of the Colorado River watershed, our inability to negotiate a sustainable plan for the water is one strong reason I support a moratorium on any new water intensive infrastructure (which does not include all data center designs).
"They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid"
How are they generating that electricity though? If it's fossil fuels, then that's not very sustainable.
In my country the only real concern is electricity. The main reason we attract data centers is cheap, renewable electricity. Now, if the operators really built their own electricity generation infrastructure, the cost of existing electricity wouldn't matter much. So I suspect the plan is to mostly utilize existing capacity, which will drive prices higher, especially when it's not windy. It's not ordinary citizen that are worried, also companies in other energy-intensive industries have voiced their concern. And those industries tend to employ way more people than data centers ever will.
I think electricity needs of ordinary people and businesses that employ them should always come first. Data center operators should be required to build enough capacity to meet the increase in electricity demand. Otherwise it's just modern day colonialism, exploiting our resources without much local economic benefit.
> This is going to bring a LOT of money to my county which sorely needs it and a LOT of people to my dying rural town.
This is the crux of the whole thing is it not? People want money into their communities and even more into their pockets:
https://nationalsecurity.virginia.edu/research/what-american...
But not everything turns out fine:
https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/richland-p...
Overall it is fine to say that this money will help the community but pretending that everything is going to be fine and others do not understand or that they are "tiktok informed voting block" is kind of low hit.
> It's going to use less water than the farm
A farm produces food. It seems the residents actually understand the issue better.
> They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid
That's what they write on the brochure. A sensible stance is to be skeptical, given the [lack of] government regulations, gutting of EPA and big tech track record.
> "Noise"
Stinky swamps don't dampen the disruptive noise to nature. People [should] have a right to preserve the environment they live in.
> "Wildlife refuge"
I think this is the worst in the list. It doesn't have to be half inside the refuge to be destructive.
These all seem to be valid criticisms, without a practical response. Defending such monumentally impactful project needs stronger reasoning.
I don't live in BE county, but I live a little south of there. I'm also familiar with water allocation in Utah and you're correct that the data center will use less water than the farms it replaces. The water saved will stay in the underground instead of being pumped out, which is a good thing.
The only legitimate criticism I've seen of the data center is by the USU professor who calculated the heat output and determined it would raise the ambient temperature of the area by 5-9F (if my memory is correct). Also, while it will provide a net tax benefit, the data center is getting some tax breaks compared to any other run of the mill industrial project.
My concern is that so much of what is going on with data centers in general ( and from what I have read, this one also ) is everything that is kept private from the communities. People need to stop acting like the people are not part of the government and don't have a say. We may elect representation, but we are still in charge.
> This is going to bring a LOT of money to my county which sorely needs it and a LOT of people to my dying rural town.
Is it? I haven't looked at this project in particular but I've always heard these dc projects described as having pretty minimal impacts on tax revenue, jobs, etc. Some work for laborers during construction, then only a few full time employees. In addition, the value produced by the facility is not exposed to the community through any kind of tax mechanism. So I'm wondering how beneficial is it really going to be for the town?
I think that part of the problem might be that people don't trust corporations. Sure, they say all that, and that may even be the current plan, but is that how things will actually end up? Will there be consequences "unintended" consequences like polution? Will this be used as a stepping stone to something that is harmful?
Where the rich and powerful are involved, maybe it's better not to take the risk.
It's a question of what the gain is. The perceived gain is currently zero. So even any tiny risk of any drawback gets a "no" vote.
few points: 1. the water usage claim is reported only by developer. However, the developer omitted the fact that more water is also need to cool down the gas power plant. The project reported only water used by the DC directly. 2. so far nothing firm is committed regarding the DC will produce power on site. I would be careful with what developer claims vs. the reality. 3. isn't the problematic refuge around Locomotive Springs? 4. sure, if you live 1hour away from the DC you won't have issue with noise. But what about the communities closer to the DC? 5. the DC is planning to use as much power as the whole Utah, what will happen with the waste heat energy?
It’s might create a massive localized heat problem https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2026/05/07/utahs-dat...
I think that a lot of people are more sophisticated than you think, and see data center buildouts as WeWork-style unsustainable growth spurred by speculative fervour rather than business fundamentals.
The water you cite is groundwater. It does not return in the same lifetime it is consumed at that rate. Gaining in this context simply means losing less than before. Weasel words are exactly why voters reject building AI.
This is classic Haidt's Righteous Mind stuff -- people vibe out a moral judgement, then generate rational explanations post-hoc. I'm much more interested in trying to figure out what the vibed judgement is.
> This is going to bring a LOT of money to my county
What money is it going to bring? 6 months of noisy construction work and then like.. half a dozen security guys on shifts and an engineer call out once a week?
The build out will take a couple years. I don't care about the noise. No one will hear it. It's an hour away from anything. Truly in the middle of nowhere. The DC will employee probably 100 high paid people. That money goes back into my town. The best benefit is going to be how much tax revenue we get from this DC. It's going to be the biggest tax generator this county has ever seen by a lot. We just had to raise property taxes by 37% to fund our schools. We need the money.
It will not employ 100 highly paid people, sorry.
According to Oleary it will employ about 5000 permanent workers. According to the county it will employ 1-2k permanent workers. These are going to be rented out data centers to other companies who will staff their people here. There will need to be a large number of people managing the power generation. What resources do you have to say it won't employ 100 people?
These numbers are pretty inconsistent with other major data center rollouts. Furthermore, there are no repercussions (AFAIK) if the project fails to deliver that many permanent jobs. Oleary can say all he wants but unless there is some specific tax or legal measure that says "you must pay at least 2,000 FTE at a rate of $150k/year for at least 20 years" then it's basically impossible to guarantee these numbers. And frankly no data center developer would sign up for that liability knowing full well that humans at data center may well end up being automated (even more than they are today).
Experience?
The massive Foxconn Wisconsin project promised 13,000 jobs. They ended up with 1/10th of that. That wasn't even a data center, it was intended to be manufacturing tangible goods. The outcome is the same, though, they over-promise and under-deliver.
The data centers employ a shit ton of people when they're built, but are sparsely staffed after construction. By your own admission, the data center is in the middle of nowhere next to a stinky swamp. Where are these employees going to live?
You have to understand that O'Leary will say that it will employ thousands of people to get this built, even if it is not true. Once it's built, what's the penalty for automating the thing and employing almost no one?
You want this because you see that your town is crumbling, and totally understand that. Small towns live and die by their ability to attract people from the outside, and nobody is coming to see a data center. The towns which survive are those which have farmer's markets on the weekend and can draw crowds. They have a reason for someone to come there, whether it's a theater, a brewery, or a historical site.
You've been promised a Field of Dreams, but that's all that it is.
I seriously doubt it needs 100 highly paid people. These will be automated to death. A few guys employed out of state, periodically visiting to swap out dead GPUs and staying in the nearest hotel. Maybe a bored HVAC engineer on site for maintenance.
I don't doubt you need the money. But the tax take on these places is always fictional.
If you look at 10-36MW DCs, the number of people on site is like 10, many are security and it's not a proportional relationship.
If you look at 10-36MW DCs, the number of people on site is like 10, many are security and it's not a proportional relationship.
I don't know much about this, but isn't Stratos ultimately planned to be 9GW, or 250x the size of your 36MW DC? Even if it doesn't scale proportionally, it's not hard to see it get to 100 people.
> The best benefit is going to be how much tax revenue we get from this DC
You're saying this all over the thread, but not one word about how much revenue and what percent of your county's budget that is. Some actual numbers please.
According to the county 30 million per year during the build out then 108 million at max capacity. Our budget last year was 76.3 million. This will be more money than we know what to do with.
"This will be more money than we know what to do with." That sounds like putting the cart before the horse. This is what leads to inflated city budgets, wasteful/risky projects and fraud.
The DC is going to pay $108m in property taxes per year? There's a source for this?
You're still wrong about the job creation benefits. But if this is really, verifiably true it sounds like a good deal.
>"It'll use too much water." - It's going to use less water than the farm that used to run on this land. The county is gaining water from this.
But farms are necessary and datacenters are not.
>"Our electrical bills will go up" - They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid
I've yet to see this happen, also in the case that it does I really don't want to live near a power plant.
>"Wildlife refuge" - This bird refuge is in Brigham City. The data center will be on the opposite end of the county. Some people seem to think it's right next door.
Probably irrelevant, as people would just build something else that's bad for wildlife.
I think a lot of this can be chalked up to poor regulation. People think it will cause bad effects because the government bodies and processes are not trusted to prevent that.
The Power plant is still going to contribute to cooking the planet and using all the remaining fossil fuels, so nothing will be left for our grandchildren.
People are really underestimating how much influence tiktok has over the gen pop.
This is my read of it, I don't really have any special data about the average voter, so feel free to disregard my opinions.
I think the objection to datacenters is not really an objection to the physical buildings and side effects thereof. Like you say, there's not that many downsides to most of these projects.
I think the objection is that people feel like the world is spiritually messed up. Our system's response to these people is "we have AI now, and that's actually going to accelerate things. It's going to be just like today, but moreso! Don't you want that?"
At some abstract level, people don't like the direction we are going in a very broad sense. The fire of modernity is nice to warm you up, but when it gets away and turns into a blaze, people realize that there's something gone wrong.
That there are so many concrete objections trotted out, and that people switch between them at will -- that tells you that people do not like it, but they are having trouble articulating why. Which is fair. It's very difficult to articulate. But people do understand that AI, datacenters, computers, etc are a cause. It's because they are a physical thing. The physical totem of the spiritually bereft online world that big tech has created. It's the online AI slop world people don't like; the physical manifestation of that world is the thing they can concretely object to.
People want to coordinate towards no one building data centers because the purpose of the data centers is to disempower and impoverish every single person who works for a living. However, that real goal looks like a tragedy of the comments where everyone is tempted to defect, so people have to pretend to have selfish local reasons to hate the data centers.
>People want to coordinate towards no one building data centers because the purpose of the data centers is to disempower and impoverish every single person who works for a living.
My Hatian neighbors who do gig economy stuff and are totally not running a car dismantling operation on the side would absolutely benefit if all the people who complain about them and are the driving political force behind the rules used to harass them were disempowered and impoverished.
I think they're a pretty extreme example but you see people in situations like this all across the blue collar economy.
Has anyone said they don't like Kevin Oleary? That's usually good enough.
Did you research the reasons in favor building it with the same rigor? What was the outcome?
You're completely missing the point by assuming the sentiment is associated with that specific data center. People feel powerless about the effect that AI is having on their lives, and these data centers are simply the physical manifestation of it. They want to feel like they have some control over the future they are providing for their children. So, they are grasping at the only lever that they think they have available to them. No economic argument is going to sway them.
I think you're right
> This is going to bring a LOT of money to my county
How much?
108 million per year when it's built out and operating at max capacity. For comparison our budget last year was 76 million
Is there a source for this?
You forgot the "provides 200 permanent jobs while threatening and destroy the human race" argument. And the "I don't like a bunch of billionaires controlling politics, manipulating the economy, trying to use the S&P to fund their schemes, then possibly destroying the species as a side effect" argument.
Maybe average people aren't smart enough to read the Anthropic S-1 and conclude "all those 'end the world' risks should be ignored, because Q3 earnings".
Average people are seeing unemployment, rising prices, all the RAM and disks are gone, and Oligarchs controlling everything and saying we will all be controlled, unemployed, poor, or killed. And you're asking why they don't want to support that in exchange for a little more foot traffic, a temporary construction gig, or a few dozen permanent IT roles?
Here's what Anthropic had to say, I think their argument is a pretty good reason not to build more data centers: * Catastrophic species-threatening risks (biological, nuclear, etc). * Massive economic destabilization and disruption * Compute and infrastructure shortages and volatility * Wars and international conflict * Unable to be underwritten by the entire insurance industry * Takeover by governments, use by threat actors * A small band of people trying to get rich and payoff ~$1T in liability by claiming value roughly equal to annual GDP of Canada.
Maybe what we need is better messaging from the people building data centers.
WHY do we need infinity data centers? To "win" the AI race? Tell us in quantifiable terms what constitutes "winning."
And we already have 10x the data centers that China has. Can't we pump the brakes a little bit? If not, tell us why not without using vague language.
Finally, tell us, again in quantifiable terms, how building a data center will benefit us. Tell us exactly how many PERMANENT jobs are going to be created, how much tax revenue is going to be created, and let us hold you to it. There HAS to be something in it for us.
It is a democracy. They don't have to give you an answer an answer at all, even if you disagree with it. They get to feel how they feel, and the onus on persuading them otherwise.
Maybe Oleary should spend a minute figuring out there is resistance to the project by listening to the people in the area, and if it's really a good idea he should be able to make his case to convince them otherwise.
Maybe it's how he's done it, more than the outcome. And that is not an invalid reason, people enjoy feeling respected and that they have a voice.
It's the frustrating nature of politics. When an issue first starts to reach the general public consciousness, you tend to see arguments for/against from people who have been thinking about it for a while. As it reaches a wider argument, those arguments get distilled and removed from their context, and they end up being used as liturgy by people who decide on their position first and come up with the reasons second. "Some data centers have wasteful open-loop water cooling systems" -> "data centers waste all our water" etc.
Not only does this end up shutting down good projects, it also puts people in a weird position if they agree with the conclusions but actually think about the reasons. Taking this data center as an example, I would personally be extremely unenthusiastic about a data center standing up its own power generation. It's surely going to be on a smaller scale than a typical power plant and therefore likely to be less efficient and more polluting. The EPA recently stated that power plants not supplying the grid are not subject to certain pollution regulations, so even if the on-site generation could be less polluting, it most likely won't be. This whole idea of data centers bringing their own power generation is so clearly an end run around regulations and proper grid buildout, but that doesn't show up anywhere in your list of objections and I'd bet you didn't just leave it out either. But if I tried to object on this basis, I'd get lumped in with the "uses all the water" people.
I live also an hour away from Hansel Valley, and the concerns are broadly environmental where I'm at. I think people just don't know how to articulate the damage, even though they intuitively feel it coming. I think your point about power generation is debatable. I know some USU and BYU researchers have put out studies on the waste heat being just north of Salt Lake.
In regards to your wildlife refuge and "stinky swamp" points: wildlife don't know the boundaries of refuges, and use more land than owned by DWR. A stinky swamp is perfect habitat. I've been waterfowl hunting for many years and have seen the decline and patterns change. I can't imagine this data center helping much with that.
I wouldn't be opposed to it if AI was otherwise being rolled out responsibly, and being used to solve real problems. But in reality, it's mostly just more vaporware production, meeting notes expansion and contraction, and otherwise useless bullshit.
In the words or my Republican father regarding O'Leary "We just have enough stuff already". And this from a very much blue collar, working class, no health care rural-american.
My rather red rural region, whose leaders have been signing datacenters to raze farmland for the county money that’s sorely needed, just evicted by popular vote every pro-datacenter candidate I can think of in favor of socialist-left candidates while also voting to raise taxes to fund schools. I suspect a load of business tax credits will be terminated over the next few years as a result. Good. There are other ways to bring a lot of money into your county than datacenters, and many of them involve taxing business profits after wages. Red doesn’t mean pro-capitalist, after all! Best of luck in your region :)
ps. Have never used tiktok
But then what's the implication here? Why would there be large scale propaganda or otherwise effort against large companies who have and make a lot of money? In whose interest is it to get people to dislike the data centers (other than, perhaps debatably, the people themselves)? If its all truly just people being duped, to what end does the naïvete serve?
I'd pretty much oppose anything Kevin O'leary was involved in, too.
>I really just have to come to the conclusion that we have a tiktok informed voting block here. I've had people ask me if I'm worried that the new data center will spy on me. What?
Are all data centers going to be trouble-free or are you generalizing from this one example? Sorry for the snark, but your n=1 isn't remotely enough to support that claim. I'm not necessarily siding with the people seething at data-centers, but I'm nowhere near convinced that tech bros and company did a good job of avoiding conflict or addressing people's concerns. They helped bring this on themselves. FAFO.
I think you’re too focused on the actual facts. My take: people hate them because they are a physical manifestation of the tech bro billionaires.
A farm produces food that people can eat. A data center runs AI that takes people's jobs and produces... vibe coded websites that look like trash.
You gotta sell it to the voters and so far no one can because it's garbage they didn't ask for
> I really just have to come to the conclusion that we have a tiktok informed voting block here.
i thought personal attacks and perjoratives arent allowed on HN? hmm
data centers = billionare scheme to take all our jobs away and enslave us.
Its not that hard to understand or deserves any gotcha questions. Maybe they should ask you how exactly do you plan to feed your family once all the jobs are gone and only ppl who have any say are data center owners. God i hate "well actually" tech nerds so much.
This might be the case, but it's not going to stop the technology from stealing your jobs. Billionaires in countries like China are going to leap frog over the US in terms of technology or the billionaires here will just build there instead.
If you think Flock cameras are bad, you have no idea the kind of surveillance the Chinese government uses on their people.
As I've gotten older, I've stopped trying to help people help themselves. Instead, I just watch and close my door in their face when they beg for help.
I can't tell if you're being satirical or not and that just proves my point even more.
i get the impression that comment was tongue in cheek, but my unironic opinion is that AI is bad for humanity, and it's good and correct to oppose data centers on the grounds that AI is bad.
I hate AI. I dread going to work every day now. But it's here and it's going to happen. At least my county gets to benefit from it.
ai is good. 10 ppl controlling ai is bad.
According to The Reverse Centaur’s Guide,[1] capital investment in AI is so high that the only possible way for the investments to make enough (and to avoid a bubble) is if whole classes of jobs are automated wholesale. And of course that Capital then takes the saved money from that. Maybe some people dislike datacenters-for-AI based on that. Because it’s all part of the same scheme.
Maybe people who don’t quite like that should be more articulate about it rather than using seeming post hoc reasoning like “water”? I don’t know. In my experience the bar for frustrated-five-on-the-street is quite high if they want to avoid an aww-shucks this voting bloc and their social medias.
[1] https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374621575/thereversecenta...
What part of it sounds satirical to you? It's all true.
AI companies don't exactly try to hide the fact that their end goal is replacing all human jobs.
Then it should be easy to cite your source. Let’s see the “goal = replacing all human jobs” announcement?
I'm not bakugo, but here you go:
"However, I do think in the long run AI will become so broadly effective and so cheap that this [this being areas were humans are likely to maintain a relative (or even absolute) advantage for a significant time that keeps them employed] will no longer apply. At that point our current economic setup will no longer make sense, and there will be a need for a broader societal conversation about how the economy should be organized." [1]
"Over the weekend, Musk responded to an user on X that said that the humanoid’s Total Addressable Market (TAM) was the entire global labor market, [...]" [2]
Altman is a little more cautious and thinks (out loud, I doubt he actually does) we'll all be artists on UBI, or something:
"[...] maybe the jobs of the future will look like playing games to us [...] find new ways to play status games, ability to find new methods for creative expression" "And I think we need something like basic income to have a cushion and a smooth transition to the jobs of the future." "In a world where technology eliminates jobs, it will mean that the cost of having a great life goes down a lot." [3]
These aren't very realistic or popular scenarios, but the people building frontier AI (ok, well, one of those three is not like the others...) wanted to get them out there. Seems people don't want to sign up for the questionable utopias.
[1] https://darioamodei.com/essay/machines-of-loving-grace#3-eco...
[2] https://eletric-vehicles.com/tesla/tesla-q2-earnings-here-ar...
[3] all on X, https://x.com/sama
Did you miss the whole "Stop Hiring Humans" billboards that were all over SF?
Or Microsoft's AI chief's "I think we're going to have a human-level performance on most, if not all, professional tasks. So, white-collar work, where you're sitting down at a computer — either being, you know, a lawyer, or an accountant, or a project manager, or a marketing person — most of those tasks will be fully automated by an AI within the next 12 to 18 months."
Or Dario's "software engineering will be fully automated in 12 months" or "wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs"
Or Altman's “AI superintelligence at some point on its development curve would be capable of doing a better job being the CEO of a major company than any executive, certainly me... On our current trajectory, we believe we may be only a couple of years away from early versions of true superintelligence.”
Either you've been living under a rock, or you're pretending to be ignorant.
It is indeed very easy:
https://fortune.com/2025/05/28/anthropic-ceo-warning-ai-job-...
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/26/sam-altman-on-ai-jobs-may-go...
Replacing human jobs should be the dream of all people. You want humans doing drudgery when it could be automated by machines? Why?
> And as I have mentioned the word labour, I cannot help saying that a great deal of nonsense is being written and talked nowadays about the dignity of manual labour. There is nothing necessarily dignified about manual labour at all, and most of it is absolutely degrading. It is mentally and morally injurious to man to do anything in which he does not find pleasure, and many forms of labour are quite pleasureless activities, and should be regarded as such. To sweep a slushy crossing for eight hours, on a day when the east wind is blowing is a disgusting occupation. To sweep it with mental, moral, or physical dignity seems to me to be impossible. To sweep it with joy would be appalling. Man is made for something better than disturbing dirt. All work of that kind should be done by a machine.
— Oscar Wilde, “The Soul of Man Under Socialism,” Fortnightly Review, February 1891
That would be true under a good economic system. Instead we have a system where the benefits are reaped by the few, and the masses get to either work or starve. Taking away the "work" option is, needless to say, offensive to those.
This is explicitly about manual labor. The things on the verge of being automated are precisely not in the "sweeping a slushy crossing" category. If Wilde was here to see the things the slop-peddlers are calling art, he'd be distraught.
Yea thats fine but you think they will distribute the wealth to you in particular?
i mentioned it in my comment too
> Maybe they should ask you how exactly do you plan to feed your family once all the jobs are gone and only ppl who have any say are data center owners.
i am not conviced that markzuckerberg stays up all night building datacenters so he can pass on that wealth to you.
> I cannot help saying that a great deal of nonsense is being written and talked nowadays about the dignity of manual labour. There is nothing necessarily dignified about manual labour at all, and most of it is absolutely degrading
That's unfortunate, as manual labor will be the only thing left if AI companies have their way.
People are pissed that Big Tech/VC/SV has taken over seemingly everything, enshittified it, and enriched the enshittifiers (while the economy has gotten worse for nearly everyone else, and Big Tech's fucking insane leaders have gone full steam ahead at destroying the social contract--literally in some cases by eviscertating whole swaths of the American federal government, and probably illegally at that--and funding the campiagns of those who seek to shield Big Tech from liability.). All this despite having come onto the scene under the guise of "Don't Be Evil" and "Think Different." Data Centers are the most visible manifestation of this ugly side of Big Tech/VC/SV, and ugly in and of themselves; thus, it is not surprising that people roundly reject them. There is (because of the timing of this inflection point--upward--in data centers and inflection point--downward--in economic sentiment/reality) probably also some post hoc ergo propter hoc or temporal-correlation-as-causation going on here too.
The thing is, it takes a pretty coherent worldview of Big Tech, VC economics, politics, etc., to state above as such, so I am not surprised (in a time when education, too, is being destroyed--often by Big Tech itself) most people can't articulate it. 1 in 5 american adults is functionally illiterate, after all.
If you believe all of those counter points will hold true for even a month after operation starts you're real naive. People driving the plans to build out this infrastructure do not care about a single point listed there and will lie to get it over the line.
Are you saying they're going to construct the data center then move it to a different location? Or are you suggesting they're going to change the laws of physics so that sound propagates differently?
I'm saying that just because they say that they will generate their own electricity, or require less water than a farm, doesn't mean that they will continue to do so into the future.
Why did you leave out water and electricity use?
All of these counter points? Do you think they're going to pull a fast one and move the building hundreds of miles at the last second into someone's back yard? What about water? Are they going to at the last minute change the cooling from a closed loop system? This is going to use 162 million gallons less per year than the farm. How in the world is the DC going to burn through that much extra water at the last minute? Are they going to pull a fast one on us and just hook the building into the grid? What are you talking about?
You're proving my point. No one is actually thinking about this. Everyone is just driven by hatred for people who have more money than them.
The claim was that they generate power and can feed back into the grid, that requires a grid connection.
If they have a grid connection, they are going to take power from the grid when cheaper than generating power.
1. Closed loop water systems use chemicals that can leech out of the system. There is 100% going to be more discoveries as time goes on with such a fast build out. Maybe not enough to make it not worthwhile? But not 100% safe either.
2. I’m anti-data center. I think at some point, you pull the levers you have? I think the tech industry is too consolidated and wields too much power, and the whole data center buildout has been done under a shroud of secrecy.
I think it’s rational to pull the levers you have, when the industry is predicting something close to the apocalypse.
Yes it’s mostly vibes, but until the industry stops acting like fucking nutters. I’m voting on vibes.
> You're proving my point. No one is actually thinking about this. Everyone is just driven by hatred for people who have more money than them.
The policy-informed theory of How The Rich Are Irrationally Hated.
No, I just know how business works. When you are doing something like this you establish the bare minimum as the baseline, get your foot in the door, then start testing boundaries.
Also these buildings will be abandoned within the next couple years as models move more towards the edge.
> The county is gaining water from this
All farming should be stopped immediately and converted to data centres, then we’ll have unlimited water!
Tell me you know nothing about water rights and farming…
Some farming should indeed be stopped, and we would have more water. Farming is not an unmitigated food, no matter how sarcastic you are.
Why not both actually? https://www.theaquaponicsource.com/data-center-heat-reuse/
It's a Chinese psy-op. There are legitimate reasons to want to regulate data center noise, but that's an eminently solvable problem. The out-of-proportion reaction you're seeing is driven by misinformation.
At this point I really can't see any other justification. The amount of misinformation and hysteria around this issue is like nothing I've seen before.
Just come to Georgia and talk to actual people living here after a data center moved in. You know, like this: https://youtu.be/4A6NECilAls
Also: Why the actual fuck is it taking AOC (who doesn't even live here) to ask these questions and connect the dots publicly.
And "This is going to bring a LOT of money to my county which sorely needs it and a LOT of people to my dying rural town." is a pipe dream. If you're honest about it, I think you know that.
"I really just have to come to the conclusion that we have a tiktok informed voting block here." sounds like you're trying to insult whole groups of people. But if you get your news from Fox news, this isn't the insult you think it is.
"...is a pipe dream" I don't get it. Do you think they're just going to.. not pay taxes?
Yes, I do. Know why I think that? Under threat of another expensive lawsuit, my local datacenter forced our town council to give a 50% tax cut for 12 years. So they are already able to not pay about 1.7 billion in taxes. If they could pay $0, they would.
So your town gave up $140 million PER YEAR in tax revenue to avoid an expensive lawsuit? I call bullshit.
EDIT: I looked it up, not surprisingly, you're really shading the truth here. This is the barn, yes? So it looks like what happened is that the township denied the application for the DC, the developer sued, and the township cut a deal to let the DC go through, with a 50% cut to their tax bill for 12 years. Then the value of the DC went up dramatically, because AI, and the township tried to claim that the tax cut was for 50% of the original value when they approved the tax cut, not 50% of the property value when the tax is due. Their own attorney told them that was bullshit, so they eventually dropped it.
This is like if a store gives you a coupon for 50% off and then you take it in to redeem it a few months later and they've quadrupled their prices, and they try to tell you the coupon actually means 50% off of what their prices were when you got the coupon. Ridiculous.
I don't trust the datacenter side of the table at all. I don't trust their claims. I don't trust their numbers. We have myriad examples of their lies. Do we have any examples of them being good corporate citizens that offset this?
I don't trust that local communities have any recourse if/when the datacenter changes the terms, violates agreements, poisons the air and ground and water, loses interest and leaves the area to deal with the mess on its own, and so on. Moneyed interests have bought legislators and directed them to quietly advance projects that don't help the local constituents, and then hide behind contract law when what they are doing is clearly bad for regular people.
There is literally zero reason to trust these folks, and every reason to be skeptical. They have shown themselves to be unrepentant bad actors time and time again. Why should we allow any of this without requiring real guarantees and protections for local communities?
It will not bring tax money or permanent jobs to your town. What are the tax offsets that are being promised to developers to get them to build there, and how are these going to help fund local services? The same people responsible for the hollowing out of your rural town are now telling you that they're going to fix it.
If you truly think having a >GW AI datacenter in your town is going to benefit you and your neighbors then I don't know what to tell you. It's like listening to someone tell you about how the stripper really is into him. Good luck
> "It'll use too much water." - It's going to use less water than the farm that used to run on this land. The county is gaining water from this.
comparing water for food(?) is a bit crazy to compare water for AI speculation
There are a lot of good reasons to have data center moratoriums and it's so they can be regulated at the federal level and every city has to start at the same starting line. You currently have data centers doing a race to the bottom between desperate cities
The literal pitch these guys have been using is:
* We've built a technology that has obliterated entry level hiring
* That technology might obliterate all the other "normal" person white collar jobs. The kinds of jobs you can clock in and out and not think about them outside of that. Instead, every new job will be a managerial one working with 500 agents.
* Loaning all the money to build these data centers and train these models costs so much it cranks rates through the roof, so we've frozen the real estate market and nobody can move or buy in
* The past 10 years of American politics have been defined by how the last time we did a broad replacement of labor event like that for a group of people. Their standard of living permanently shrunk (the NAFTA disrupted working class), and we may end up doing that to you guys again. The only solution is that the government is going to have to do some sort of UBI or redistribution (which the last time they did during COVID, it was followed by the greatest inflation we've seen in our lifetimes)
* This technology might literally destroy the world in the next 10 years, and we keep accidentally releasing it into the world like its Skynet. But we are not responsible for it, and by the way its unavoidable with this technology. Somewhere on the other side, utopia will arise (No really your standard of living will actually go up after losing your job this time unlike everyone else, trust me.)
Then half the people in this thread is smugly are acting baffled at why people don't want this, and going "Hey they don't know that much about data center logistics but still oppose this. What is up with that?." Forget about if a data center actually ends up being a net drag if its near you and the standard nimby stuff. Even if it weren't, what benefit does marching towards this future have for anybody not in the top 10%? Sure, you can make a bunch of economic theory arguments: growth is always good, stagflation, Luddites, etc. But in practice, economic advancement and technology over the past 30 years has advanced so fast people can't even comprehend it, and in return everybody is becoming stupider, more unhappy, polarized, and the median standard of living has dropped as rich people have 20x their net worth. Why would a normal person want more of this?
The current framing of US politics is basically "vote for us because the other party is an existential threat" and data center proponents have adopted a similarly retarded position "we have to build data centers or China wins."
For this framing to work, you need a base of reliable supporters already all-in on your cause regardless of how you actually perform, and the data center proponents have done virtually everything imaginable the last four years to drive people away. Why AI investors are shocked (shocked) is really beyond explicable reason; American on both teams have never responded well to this kind of brain-dead gambit.
Exactly. The most baffling thing about the backlash is how shocked the tech boosters are at it. I know tech can be a bubble, but it's stark to see just how out of touch people inside can be.
Most American's lives have been made worse by AI so far, rather than better. They are deeply skeptical that future gains will be freely shared with them rather than horded by a few tech oligarchs. Based on pretty much all of modern history, they're right to be skeptical.
This is apparently incomprehensible to many AI proponents, but many people would genuinely rather live next to a farm than a data center. They don't care that you can vibe code a hobby project or a jira ticket 10x faster than before. They do want cheaper utilities and a secure economic position, and they are well aware that AI is providing the opposite for them.
This comment section blows my mind! Are we that insulated from the world? Are these all bots? Am I crazy???
Tech is now viewed in the same lense as dirty greedy oil companies. If an oil company opened a candy store most people I know would not go because "Oh those oil companies can't be trusted"
Anytime I talk to anyone not in tech they're extremely sceptical of anything tech companies do. Most common reasons I hear as to why is greed, social media destroying children in many ways, seeking political power, and now many parents are concerned their child won't have critical thinking skills because AI is here to think for them.
I don't think they're crazy or obviously wrong. It breaks my heart to hear tech leaders chalk this all up to "AI has poor messaging" as if you say "Our lies have got to be better so we can make the public believe what we want". I've never seen tech so out of touch.
> Tech is now viewed in the same lens as dirty greedy oil companies. If an oil company opened a candy store most people I know would not go because "Oh those oil companies can't be trusted"
That's right, but consider what people would be saying about oil companies on Driller News. Thousands of users here have financial or ideological vested interests in the success of the current crop of tech companies. They can recognize the individual faults of the industry where it doesn't affect their primary interest - such as disliking social media, addictive design and so on - but when you start talking about THE tech golden goose, you will find very little opposition.
Who cares what Luddites think?
The thing that gets me is why the hell are these things being powered with loud generators and fossil fuels? These facilities are billed as being 21st century technological marvels. But what's actually delivered looks like something out of the industrial revolution. Harvesting old jet engines from decommissioned planes in order to power your facility? You've got to be joking.
This is a once in a generation opportunity to get private investment for solar farms from multi-trillion dollar market cap firms and we're squandering it in order to construct noisy, polluting behemoths that belong firmly in the prior century. Talk about wasting our political capital.
For the most part, the same people are against the data center buildout and the sustainable energy buildout. If the US were a thinking nation, it would be trivial to ram through solar panels, wind turbines and transmission lines. However, we all saw what happened when Massachusetts tried to build power lines to buy power from Hydro-Quebec, for example. It’s entirely a regulatory self own that AI capex is being spent on gas turbines instead of wind turbines.
"For the most part, the same people are against the data center buildout and the sustainable energy buildout"
Got any proof for that statement?
How do you run the data centers during the night if they are solar powered? The only on-the-shelf low carbon tech with the reliability and deployability we need is nuclear. Any other discussion is just pointless.
> How do you run the data centers during the night if they are solar powered?
A combination of battery storage and grid power, which is generally quite cheap overnight if current off-peak and on-peak pricing is any indicator.
I do not see any evidence that nuclear is quickly and economically deployable. The latest nuclear expansion to come online in the US took 15 years, 35 billion dollars, and resulted in power bill increases for customers to pay for that cost. If we can actually solve that it would be nice, but it hasn't been shown yet.
Neither of those get to the carbon neutral point of the whole endeavor. Just more complicated steps to shuffle the deck chairs around. Nuclear power is just magic rocks that get hot, put them in the water to make steam for the turbines. The costly part is a political and regulatory problem that is more easily solved than paving over all the farm land with solar panels or strip mining third world countries for lithium.
> Nuclear power is just magic rocks that get hot, put them in the water to make steam for the turbines.
Oh I see, I didn't realize it was so simple. Let's meet back in a week and we can compare my backyard solar + battery demonstration to your nuclear demonstration.
This is a good example of feeling like I've been transported back in time. A time before people had an answer to the question: How can I use a computer if I've disconnected it from the grid? (I guess that takes us back to 1980)
Did they reject data centers? Or did they represent the current ownership model behind data centers?
Tech “ownership models” have accelerated the separation of haves and have nots. I’ve wondered if datacenters were regulated such that they become public goods (libraries, power and water infra, etc), if the public would invest more agreeably in them.
Just policy thinking out loud.
I think you mean resent?
And agreed, when people have a problem with data centers, it isn't because of new technology, it's because the data centers represent taking resources (water, electricity, RAM) and power away (work as social leverage) from the people.
"No sooner had Everet in 1758 erected the first wool-shearing machine that was driven by water-power, than it was set on fire by 100,000 people who had been thrown out of work. Fifty thousand workpeople, who had previously lived by carding wool, petitioned Parliament against Arkwright’s scribbling mills and carding engines. The enormous destruction of machinery that occurred in the English manufacturing districts during the first 15 years of this century, chiefly caused by the employment of the power-loom, and known as the Luddite movement, gave the anti-Jacobin governments of a Sidmouth, a Castlereagh, and the like, a pretext for the most reactionary and forcible measures. It took both time and experience before the workpeople learnt to distinguish between machinery and its employment by capital, and to direct their attacks, not against the material instruments of production, but against the mode in which they are used."
— Karl Marx, Capital, Volume I (1867), Part IV, Ch. 15, Section 5: “The Strife Between Workman and Machine”
This is exactly what happened in Loudon County. Didn’t matter they’re still mad.
What ownership model are you referring to that is tech-specific and why is it in quotes?
Because tech has all the money and all the power these days. They do whatever they want with basically unlimited funds. Big tech has reshaped everything the internet used to be just because they can. Our entire workspace is getting reshaped and who is going to benefit the most? Large tech companies.
Most people feel like they have no say in anything that is going on because a handful of insanely large tech companies are just deciding the future for everyone, and it's in their own best interest- not the best interest of the poeple.
He's referring to capitalism / private property.
The fact that Americans can be made to vote for NIMBY policies was well known. My question is what Americans think economic growth in the 21st century looks like?
As someone who grew up in a country with near zero growth (some would call it “sustainable growth”) and the resultant stagflation, I wouldn’t wish that feeling of growing into an economy where you can only aspire to take from others, on my worst enemies.
I agree with these voters on almost everything, from the need for more energy and water infrastructure to using this growth to pay for basic needs like healthcare. But when push comes to shove, for growth, the cranes have to show up in your neighborhood and build stuff.
It seems like we are habituating the American public to just reject that and hope it goes somewhere else (tm) while they get the gains and that’s not how this works.
I think this is missing the issue. It's not the cranes and walls that bother people, it's the tech companies. They've shown themselves repeatedly to be bad faith and exploitative actors. Now they're asking to move in. It's easy to understand why people are saying no.
And that's even before we consider the impact of LLMs themselves. Personally I expect LLMs to create tremendous growth, but that should be highly counter-intuitive. They're going to absolutely wreck cognitive labor; society entering into an era of deteriorating wages for cognitive work as well as increase unemployment is quite likely. My prediction is based on 'what comes next' but if somebody's only concerned about paying rent next month, this is all going to be, again understandably, seen as pie in the sky.
>> if somebody's only concerned about paying rent next month
If this is true wouldn’t it be nice if the municipal budget had some room to manouver? [1]
[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2026/09/19/700-bill...
>My question is what Americans think economic growth in the 21st century looks like?
I think they have very rationally concluded there is no economic growth benefiting them in massively consolidated capital building the infrastructure to replace their small businesses and jobs.
How are data centers replacing small businesses? That sounds like a politicians broken speech reader.
They’re literally bringing jobs and paying out the ass, the unions love em [1] and absolutely supercharging local tax revenue, just basic economic growth stuff.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/21/opinion/data-centers-elec...
Off the top of my head, copywriters, PR researchers, graphic designers, marketers, tutors.
This is the doublespeak that has the public so distrustful: value companies at billions and trillions of dollars based primarily on their ability to replace your workforce, then tell the workforce there will be no displacement. It's insults the intelligence of reasonable people.
So it’s replacing all the useless people?
They are not bringing in jobs. They employ very few people.
I'm opposed to NIMBYism 99% of the time, but these data centers aren't being opposed for no reason. There's stories coming out all over the country of negative impacts on communities and backroom deals with local officials who sign NDAs during negotiations. There's a goldrush on in the US to build these out and when that happens companies run roughshod over communities.
How is the profitability of the big AI companies looking? How is their ability to service their debt shaping up?
> My question is what Americans think economic growth in the 21st century looks like?
The people I’ve spoken with don’t want data centers in anyone’s backyard, park, grassland, unincorporated township, or wasteland. Not just a NIMBY thing. The voters want big tech to make do with what they already have. Voters don’t have to imagine what economic growth looks like—that’s an exercise left for the innovators. They do get to imagine what it does not look like, and unrestrained data center buildouts are not that future.
Voters should stop using AI then.
As a GenXer, I cannot believe the number of GenZs I have met who have done exactly that. I need to find some polling, but it gives me hope.
I'll wait until they are forgoing it while occupying most knowledge jobs.
It's easy to skip out on AI when you are a waitress or cashier.
Don’t mistake the voters for their employers.
I don't know what world you are in, but it doesn't seem like a whole lot of people are, which is why there is the antagonism.
It's mostly just a punchline for stuff once you step outside of HN and such..
Give them a choice (as in stop stuffing it into every app and service they use) and you might be surprised when they do.
> somewhere else (tm)
Also known as China, future world superpower. They have enough political continuity to formulate a strategy at national scale and execute on it.
It's crazy how they just keep winning while the US and democracies the world over keep shooting themselves in the foot.
> while they get the gains
The gains continue to flow into the US... For now. I wonder how long that'll last.
> My question is what Americans think economic growth in the 21st century looks like?
Maybe it looks like a reduction in monopolies, increased competition, lowering of prices as automation pays dividends, and a general de-consolidation of power.
It doesn't look like 4-companies owning the whole stock market and incumbents using AI to cut every worker they can with no longterm plan, using AI to deny insurance claims, and rig the deck in the most unconscionable uncompetitive ways they can.
There are outcomes much worse than "flat" if we aren't careful, and even the AI CEOs say as much.
> But when push comes to shove, for growth, the cranes have to show up in your neighborhood and build stuff.
There is absolutely no need for cranes to show up in or near existing neighborhoods to build data centers. The US is not out of remote land that would be well suited for this purpose, but building in those places requires spending more money to build supporting infrastructure, so businesses prefer to avoid that cost.
If the growth is truly beneficial, it should be able to pay for itself, and I think that is what people want to see enforced.
Data centers take resources, land, and ways of life from rural communities to give economic growth opportunities to people in cities without paying those rural communities.
I think that as an industry, we'll have to make the case persuasively that the datacenters won't hurt quality of life for nearby residents, that they'll have a positive influence on the local economy, and that even more broadly that the benefit from AI is shared and not captured by small group of the ultra wealthy.
That's politics and democracy. People get to vote that, and people that want to make changes have to work to convince the people that the change is beneficial, otherwise they lose.
Why would they have a positive influence on the local economy?
They don’t need more than a handful of people to operate.
I am not suggesting they will. That's a discussion between the communities and the datacenter developers. And the datacenter developers will have a track record they'll be able to stand behind with prior projects, or they'll have to explain why the harms were understated and the benefits were overstated.
For the record, I don't think this is necessarily a positive development for our field or the US. But the solution was one or two years in the past and involved more truthful and principled behavior by the companies developing these projects.
This election speaks for itself in terms of how the population feels about the matter.
Why should we believe that we will meaningfully benefit from that economic growth? We aren't benefiting much now. And if we won't benefit then why should we care about it?
Does economic growth look like companies firing hundreds or thousands of employees in batches because they are replacing them with AI? Because that's what people are seeing in headlines. That and mass surveillance.
Why are you upset that citizens have a right in how their communities are developed? Do you not understand that a majority of people do not care about helping capitalists get slightly richer and would rather have a life of quiet dignity?
Do we need “economic growth”? For that matter, what does that even mean? Personally, I’m more concerned with meeting real human needs, ensuring a fair and equitable world for everyone, and protecting the environment and ecosystems for long-term sustainability. I’m not even remotely convinced we need ‘number go up’ to make this happen - if anything, the hyper focus on “economic growth” seems to run counter to equity and sustainability.
“ Do we need “economic growth”? For that matter, what does that even mean? Personally, I’m more concerned with meeting real human needs”
As I pointed out, I lived in a country that answered this question exactly like you wanted. It was like living in a country where every institution from the college to the coffee shop was the DMV. It works..just about. But it sucks.
> Do we need “economic growth”? For that matter, what does that even mean? Personally, I’m more concerned with meeting real human needs, ensuring a fair and equitable world for everyone,
For example, social security relies on economic growth for funding. Meeting real human needs is a lot easier when humans are more productive.
Economic growth doesn't just mean people have more money. It means people are more productive. More productive people produce more goods than they need to survive. Those goods can be redirected to people with needs they can't supply themselves.
Economic growth is what has driven the world to be more fair and equitable over the last thousand years.
There are a set of data centers that got built where local laws were (and continue to be) broken. Messaging from the data center builders is that accepting their will is inevitable and they are above regulation. Given these, it is an entirely reasonable position to ask for a complete halt.
This doesn't happen when UPS opens a distribution center or CVS opens a store because everybody knows UPS and CVS are bound by local laws. That cannot be said of e.g. SpaceX, so the only play is to keep them out, full stop. Nobody wants a neighbor who is above the law.
Any hope of a bailout for AI or data centers vaporized last night. If an AI company gets in trouble it will be a “let it burn” scenario.
Good. That's how America's free market is supposed to work.
Thats the only good thing to come out of this. The rest of it really highlights how we acrewed up violating personal liberty with overly agressive zoning and other regulation.
Why do you say that? TARP was extremely unpopular yet still happened.
People cared about TARP because these were companies managing their retirements and banks holding their savings. They had been around for 100 years+ and many had branches in their hometown.
Very few people know, or care, about AI companies in any way.
If AI companies go bust so will those retirements accounts (and the economy) So I think it is likely that AI companies will be bailed out when the bubble bursts.
I guess the lesson multinationals learned from the 2008 financial crisis is that if you fail is better to fail really really really big.
Tech stocks, and stocks in general, are overwhelmingly held by wealthy people who are way more exposed to crash than working class folks. The median retiree is much more reliant on social security and safe investments than they are on NASDAQ. Even if a few big tech companies go to zero it will only have a modest impact on their finances.
Obviously there would be knock on effects of a major crash that are hard to predict, but people inside the AI bubble wildly overrate how invested most Americans are in their success.
yes, happened under both a red and blue administration. It was the perfect example to show that political party is meaningless when it comes to financial bailouts.
Very different situation. Banks failing en-mass is very different than some VCs, private credit speculators, and AI bros losing their shirts.
Democrats have participated in previous bailouts, I don't see why they wouldn't participate in this one. Especially given that the "it" in your "let it burn" scenario isn't AI companies, it's the economy.
Never underestimate the willingness of politicians to vote for pork.
> If an AI company gets in trouble it will be a “let it burn” scenario.
That's how things should work. Bailouts are socialism for corporations.
thats called free market capitalism...
Not at all. The reasonable democrats will be forced to clean this mess (and Iran) while spending their newly found political capital and pissing off their base.
AI bubble pops - they will vote bailouts if the situation is 2008 like. They will grudgingly support or even escalate the war in Iran because just leaving is not an option - so some stability is a must. They will support israel for the same reason.
And they will support data centers buildouts because ai is the future of economic growth.
Trump has created a mess in which there are few good moves. But they will own them.
I saw first hand the Port Washington, Wisconsin data center build and spoke to a guy working on the project. As he points out, the pay is the best he's ever had, but as construction is always boom and bust, he was under no illusion that it would last forever.
Dump truck divers, electricians, heavy machinery operators, and many other construction trades were benefiting within a 2-hour radius of the site.
Feels like the closest thing we will every see to big tech companies investing in local communities. Clearly they must be built correctly, but the cash injection to workers pockets must be a welcomed addition to local families.
> Feels like the closest thing we will every see to big tech companies investing in local communities.
When the data center is built and the dump trucks leave, what is the ongoing benefit for that community?
What is the opportunity cost of building that datacenter compared to different kinds of development with similar land and resource use? It seems to me that datacenters have low ongoing employment requirements compared to those resources used, and that many of the benefits of running the datacenter aren't gained by the local community but rather by businesses located far away.
> What is the opportunity cost of building that datacenter compared to different kinds of development
Is there another group that's lining up to build stuff on that land? Should nobody ever be allowed to build on any land unless it's being used to the maximum possible utility?
I'm all for data centers so long as they pay market rates for water and electricity.
Yes. And are not exempted from existing pollution regulations.
The data centers will pay market rates. The thing is the market rates will be higher- and that affects regular people.
A household can’t compete with a data center on electricity/ water prices. So households will have to pay more.
Winners from this off the top of my head...
- Every existing data center just became much more valuable
- If "data centers in space" actually work then their value just grew significantly
If datacenters in space becomes a thing, we will then learn that the rockets that launch them release neurotoxins into the air, and call for an immediate moratorium on rocket launches.
Anyone with the care to pay attention to what is going on realizes that the pushback on DCs has nothing to do with DCs, and everything to do with fear about AI.
> we will then learn that the rockets that launch them release neurotoxins into the air, and call for an immediate moratorium on rocket launches.
yeah, from tiktok no less.
Data centers in China, more likely
That's what happens when you are building something too fast and affects negativity the local economy. I personal doubt this data centres are really the issue. But we got what we paid for.
I don't think data centers are directly the issue either, but a proxy for feelings about the LLM era in general.
FUD spread from competing nation states is where it all originated from. Remember, no one gave a shit about datacenters until the AI race began. If you live in a medium to large city goto google maps and search for "datacenter" in your town, i bet you live within 5 miles of one that you've never even noticed before.
There's even debate about the one being built outside of Amarillo Texas, next to the freaking Pantex site (where all the US nuclear weapons are assembled). Like, opposition to it makes no sense at all hence the reason why the Pantex plant is there. There's nothing within 100 miles to affect (except nuclear warheads i guess) yet there's a debate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/09/business/china-russia-ai-...
edit: let me add that the price of natural gas in TX is effectively zero.. or may even be negative. There's plenty of energy available. Now, availability of turbines to convert those chemical bonds to eletricity is another matter but the gas is there.
The true price of gas power production is the externalized cost of its emissions, which is currently not reflected in the market price but instead paid for by all of humanity.
Natural gas power production is by far the cleanest and most available for this use case. Nuclear would be better but can't be brought online fast enough. Solar/Wind would be best but there's not enough yet either and behind the meter generation isn't even feasible. All things considered, natural gas is the best fit.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11
Are those same voters going to roundly reject steel mills or semiconductor fabs, which have a similar land/water/electricity footprint?
How do the jobs and local economic benefit compare between a steel mill, a semiconductor fab, and a datacenter?
Are companies proposing steel mills and semiconductor fabs directly adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods?
Will those developments pay for the required infrastructure expansions, or get special deals to waive those costs in return for building in that community?
Mostly yes. Everyone would also prefer that steel mills semiconductor fabs get built somewhere else, where they personally don't have to deal with any of the externalities.
But these voters don't know about that. They only care about what social media memes told them to care about.
I don't know why people voted for this. Probably something to do with all the big tech CEOs visibly paying bribes and tribute to the corrupt and massively unpopular president. I doubt the anti-data-center backlash is as extreme without that.
But also just NIMBY. No one likes to live near industry.
To get this big a backlash, you need a variety of reasons to oppose that appeal to a broad coalition of voters. Inevitably some of those reasons will be silly (a lot of people talked themselves into voting for a 2nd term for Trump, after all!).
Those will likely create lots of jobs. Local industry is good.
This is completely unsurprising. Data centers are the epitome of the phrase "Privatize profits, socialize costs."
It's amazing to me that no matter how seemingly "smart" tech oligarchs are, they don't realize that you actually have to incentivize people to do the things you want by making it benefit THEM. You can't just go "Oh, this is good for society so you need to take one for the team!" Nobody believes that BS anymore. When have the oligarchs themselves ever "taken one for the team?"
Now they will just need to build datacenters in more remote areas, and pay for the infrastructure themselves. Personally I've always been a fan of building them on old oil rigs or stuff like that because there's no point in wasting fresh water to cool these things when seawater is almost as good.
But my main takeaway remains that it's just wild how BAD tech oligarchs are at understanding the psychology and motivations of the public. You'd think that when a group of voters can absolutely destroy you and everything you worked for just by passing the right legislation, you'd put in some effort to understand their mindset and incentives. But these people seem to spend all their time in their own echo chambers. Maybe in a twist of irony, their social media algorithms tell them only want they want to hear so they have no idea how much the general public hates them.
AMZN, GOOG, MSFT, META are all up 3 - 7%! Huh.
NVDA is down a couple %, ORCL is mostly flat. It’s the neoclouds that have taken the most beating, down 10%+
I wonder if people know who the data centers are for…
Getting people to vote against building anything is easy, of course when people start complaining about lack of housing, or a failing economy its quite a bit more challenging for them to recognize how regulation (that they may have voted for) led to those issues.
A lot of noise, pollution, resource usage, power sound problems etc can be easily solved. The one that I think people are frustrated is the wealth inequality and data centers are directly seen as making few people insanely rich while their lives are not improving whatsoever. I don't see a solution to this yet.
What can be done about the noise? I keep thinking about this meeting in Carroll County, KY about 1 week ago where residents confronted county officials by playing recordings of the data center noise ongoing onside their homes. [0][1]
> “You guys have made your point, okay,” Nab tells the local residents.
> “But we have to live with this now!” they urgently respond.
> “Oh, ya have to live with it?” Nab shoots back, smirking as he speaks.
> “Yes we do!” the locals reply, as other townies chime in. At one point, a security guard jumps in and warns everyone to act like “adults.”
The near open mocking of residents as they grapple with persistent noise is what bends me the wrong way.
[0] https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/resident-screec...
[1] https://www.wkyt.com/2026/10/29/carroll-county-residents-pla...
Huh? What is the solution for higher electrical bills? Build more power plants? Who will pay to build these power plants? The AI companies?
We had a clown running in our local election who had "no data centers" on their election signs. The area they were running to control is the last place you would ever want to put a data center. This clown won. Politicians use this to fool stupid people.
> Politician promised "no data centers". District was unsuitable for data centers anyway.
On the bright side, here's a politician who can keep their promise.
Yep same as GOP using trans panic, women in men's sports, Haitians eating cats and dogs, gender reassignment surgery in schools. These things aren't real issues but it works.
If you don’t give people buttons to say no to AI, they will use ballots instead.
Data centers are the way of the future. We can either embrace them or fall behind places like China. I definitely think they should pay their own way 100%, but for God's sake, look at the big picture. Everyone uses AI in some way or another every day.
I bet if AI actually starts making visible-to-patient progress in curing diseases, data centers will be welcome with open arms.
All it takes is for one state to grant AI narrowly-scoped medical licensing to treat various things human doctors are allowed to treat telephonically.
They won't, because we'll still have no money to pay for healthcare as a result of AI taking our jobs. To the contrary, right now the rational choice is to not allow these AI farms to be installed so that many of us (this is not only about the US) still have access to a decent lifestyle (including decent health, that is).
AI should be owned collectively and we should all benefit from the loss of jobs. It was trained on our data and has no value without our labor, so it is our rightful property.
We both know that that won’t ever happen.
> benefit from the loss of jobs
This will only benefit some part of the present ruling-class (and partially some of their tech-minions putting those policies in effect)
What is sad is we've been building data centers for decades without problems.
Some near me have wetlands around them and the houses bordering them are very desirable.
Seems like some bad apples ruined it for everyone.
The difference is that these AI data centers use significantly more power on a per-rack basis (and thus requiring much bigger backup generators) and generate much more heat (requiring much more cooling) than the data centers of old.
Has anyone done an analysis of how these laws are defining "data center"? Anyone accidentally ban having a rack of servers on an office closet? That could suck for a lot of small businesses. I'm all for local autonomy, but knee jerk local laws can also be... messy.
Laws are public, you are welcome to go read them. All of the ones I've read define it based on [x] megawatt of compute or similar. None of them are banning a rack of servers in a closet.
In Ohio: 25 megawatts. $2 million/month in electricity, call it $750m of hardware, plus the building.
This is not going to affect small businesses.
I would be surprised if a rack of servers in an office closet could realistically draw 25 megawatts of energy, which is generally the cutoff that these local ordinances use to define a "data center". Keeping in mind that the cost of commercial electricity alone for powering even a 1 megawatt data center continuously for 1 month would have to be at least 100,000 dollars, right?
I haven't seen a broad analysis, but every specific one I've looked into accounted for your concern and defined some sort of minimum size or power draw.
They never do that in the "first round". Usually you gotta wait for a compliance industry to spring up and then they inevitably lobby for the definition of people who need to pay the compliance industry to get watered down. It's just the natural incentive creep of the system.
And it will all be explained away and get roundly ignored.
Hopefully!
its going to bring a fraction of the jobs they are projecting. and just most jobs will be temp/ contract just to build the damn thing. after its built it 90%+ related to the project will be out of job and likely leave your town (best case)
The sad reality is neither sides' politicians care. Conservatives opened the doors for the elitists, now the liberals come in and close the door behind them, ensuring no other competitors get in. This "Dems vs Reps" opposition portrayed in the media is really just a clandestine partnership. And the general public falls for it every time.
Bad news for the rest of the world, because you all will export this problem to us.
are data centers profitable, or are there currently a ton of hopes and dreams filled by outrageous investments that will bring down the economy if/when the bubble bursts? i am worried that it's the latter, but i have no clue and it feels too stupid to be true. are they actually making a profit?
Yes, this is the trillion dollar question
This is simply a fear of being left behind.
Yeah, no shit. People don't like the job stealing machine.
They’re probably inevitable anyway. Nobody likes to live near any kind of industry. For me as a kid that was dairy farms. Fucking horrible. Nobody lining up to close them down though. Hog farms are also terrible. Chickens I can imagine too, never seen one personally though.
Even something relatively innocuous like an orange grove. Rented a house in one before. Peaceful most of the time, free citrus. But when it got too cold they’d burn diesel in these little tower things and run a wind machine (like a giant reverse windmill) that was loud as fuck all night.
Had some relatives that lived near some kind of paper pulping plant. Guess if that sucked or not?
Now that I think about it, the local environment not smelling like absolute shit is probably a relatively recent development.
We have so much vacant industrial land in the rust belt (so-called "brownfields"), with good access and utility infrastructure, why not build the data centers there? Why do they need to go on farmland in the countryside?
Because it’s faster, cheaper, and easier not to. If you (gov) incentivizes it, then problem solved.
Places like Gary, IN should be courting them. Great access, on a huge lake so water is no issue, not in a hurricane or earthquake zone, and they desperately need people/companies paying property taxes.
I lived near mega diaries and oil fields growing up. Depending on the wind you either smelled manure or sulfur. People used to say "smells like money" because ag and oil were the source of jobs in the area.
We had a cake/chocolate factory near my town growing up, on some windy days it smelled really nice.
I also believe they’re inevitable. Capital will find places without opposition and build them. There are thousands of jurisdictions in the US and capital usually wins.
I’ll take data centers over pig farms pulp mills any day of the week.
Pretty much. Mushroom farms smell like shit when the wind turns. Even just normal farms smell like manure at various times of the year. Amazon fulfillment centres are hideous and create a lot of traffic in the surrounding area. There's a reason building industry near residential in the SimCity series causes residential property values to drop.
Marijuana farms in California smell like… you guessed it, marijuana!
Sugarcane processing makes the area smell like baby shit.
lol this is so true i couldn't really pinpoint the smell
Anything with a whiff of data centers were squashed. Here in Rhode Island there were rumors that the economic development ballot question was so vague that it could end up being a data center.
Related:
Data Centers on the Ballot
https://datacentersontheballot.com/ (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50361608)
Good
Drake No: datacenters
Drake Yes: Green compute sanctuaries
Bet me this isn’t just going to be a PR issue.
You know who has a lot of power / space / water?
Private compounds owned by billionaires who believe data centers are the best. Seems to me, they already have a solution to their problem.
So much money lost by Musk and co! Love it! The people always have more power than a few rich people.
And you don’t feel dirty about this victory because your glee is based on TikToks making people believe that data centres turn water dirty?
i'm not cheering or crying because of the results but curious about what happens next, I guess ready or not, into the future we go! Do me a favor and right down the 10 things promised to you by the people you voted for and put it an envelope to open 2 years from now at the next election. I think that's a worthwhile exercise and asked my kids (17 and 14) to do the same since they were both super tuned in to the election and have their own opinions.
Of course, the US is fully of NIMBYs on all fronts. Housing, progress, infrastructure.
In my local area, there's routinely local opposition to substations built due to growing residential demand and water infrastructure facility build.
They're old boomers who don't want anything built, especially not if it will economically benefit their children.
The high-level solution, though, is to stop concentrating housing and all the supporting infrastructure. NIMBY is a positive force in that regard.
The classic economic force concentrating people and businesses into small geographical areas is jobs, and perhaps jobs can finally be much more remote than in the past.
BTW, people will accept data centers near them when the price is right. The data center people just need to find that price.
I'm curious how you can square spreading infrastructure/housing around with the impact of climate change. It seems like the answer through that lens is to drive sustainable urban planning, not to move further towards suburban sprawl & car-centric culture.
No, if we disincentivized rural living like we should, and incentivize living in the city, this wouldn’t be a problem.
Jobs, services, cultural institutions, hospitals, restaurants...
Data centres have no real reason to be built in anyone's backyard. To prove it I'll just say that some of the guys that want to put it in your backyard, also ponder putting it in space.
The datacenters in space thing is probably fraud, judging by the number of times investors are hyping it as "free cooling because space is cold"
Interesting, so why is there still massive opposition to data center build that is several miles away from any residential housing?
They're very loud and run 24/7.
Forgive my ignorance, but how would the current data center proposals "economically benefit their children"? It seems like a local land concession that would benefit a national economy, but hardly do anything long-term for the locality where the data center is built (maybe ~100 jobs and some property taxes).
In most localities, the taxes levied on a DC would easily cover the school budget and then some.
Tax breaks are usually at the state level, towns get paid out, which is why so many towns were rubber stamping approvals so quickly.
Not sure where you've been but US productivity has skyrocketed since adoption of AI and this productivity increase has not been replicated in jurisdictions slower to adopt AI. This pushes up wages, decreases costs etc.
That's aside from the build-out jobs.
Anyone who works anywhere close to data center build including construction, networking, sysadmin is cleaning up right now. Their wages have doubled and demand is huge.
Maybe it is 100 permanent jobs, but that's huge for a small community, and the thousands of temporary jobs make an impact, too.
Unless you're really ideology driven there's very few things that can be built around your neighbourhood (especially in a suburb) that will make it more valuable or pleasant to live. NIMBY is just not wanting to lose things.
This. If you own real estate, you have to account for that risk.
But current prices typically assume powerful NIMBYs blocking new development.
They roundly rejected tech bro billionaires.
They did not. They rejected the billionaire tax in California. A bunch of temporarily embarrassed billionaires in California protected the rich
The narrative consistently in all the advertisement was that there was some sort of “loophole, which would allow politicians to lower the income threshold at any point without needing a vote”. I probably heard that statement over a thousand times in the past couple months.
That and even Gavin himself got on the pulpit to preach how it was poorly drafted and shouldn’t be passed. I legitimately don’t think I saw a single person or advertisement for it, you’re the first.
Apparently the problem with a country having an annual budget over 7T is more taxes. I'm sure that will fix everything .
The US has not had a "budget" since the 1990s.
Shockingly, some of us have principles other than "government should seize the assets of people I don't like".
US voters will do absolutely anything but stop using the apps and technology from Big Tech that are powered by these data centers. It's always hilarious when someone shows me a Reel or TikTok about how they hate data centers. Often, they will also send off an AI response on why data centers are problematic. They are completely oblivious or knowingly ignorant.
So are you saying they should have voted for data centers? Because I don't want them to vote for data centers, even if they're a bunch of hypocrites about it.
Reserving judgment until you've actually researched a topic is the third option.
I think they're saying that "data centers" have become a totem, where people believe that rejecting datacenter development projects will solve problems that cannot be solved this way. I've encountered more than one person who thinks, for example, that if we just ban datacenters there will be no powerful AI systems so we won't need to study their capabilities and risks in detail.
You don't need to have the correct reason for making the correct decision. What rejecting data centers will do is slow down the obscene excessive demand for more memory being taken off the consumer market, even if just a little bit. It will force AI models to become more efficient within their resource constraints instead of sucking up all the air in the room.
Sure. But it's risky to let people make correct decisions for incorrect reasons, because they may react in very silly ways when their goals aren't achieved. If the populist tide turns onto memory companies ("stop making AI chips!"), and a widely supported protest encampment blocks Micron's new fabs, that's going to increase your memory woes more than datacenter moratoriums helped them.
The city I live in is currently struggling with the issue that decades ago they banned ugly cell towers, but it turned out that resulted in a lot of dead zones for cell coverage in town, and now people are complaining about that.
Obviously the solution is to make the cell towers less ugly :p
I'm becoming increasingly pessimistic about democracy lately. The average voter will ask for a grab bag of contradictory things and then complain about attempts to deliver any one of them. My local subreddit wants cheap housing but also wants to preserve farmland and maintain historic buildings and welcome more immigrants at the same time.
Yup, can't have your cake and eat it too.
Political choices have trade-offs. We have to give up some things to gain others.
But somehow politicians get away with promising to solve all problems all at once, even though that's clearly impossible.
My gripe is less with democracy and more with the ad-driven economy that has taken over.
The competition is so intense that in order for media to survive now, it needs to relentlessly farm clicks/views. So a story about a datacenter being built near a migratory goose pond carries way more value than the story about the pond actually is a Walmart parking lot runoff pit.
There is like this business game of whoever can fear monger and misinform the most without outright lying wins, and being honest and truthful gets you punished.
We live in a system wherein our survival is gate kept by oligopolistic technology, energy, and health insurance corporations.
One can very much oppose the expansion of data centers while also using Claude all day to build software, because if you don't, you will lose your livelihood to someone who will. The problem isn't the technology, it's how it insanely disempowers workers in the labor market vs capital.
Until we have a durable solution for that along with the externalities that data centers impose on their localities, there is nothing hypocritical about using LLMs while voting to bring them to heel in the interest of the many over the interests of the few.
I enjoy eating meat, but I don't support everything thea meat industry does, does that make me a hypocrit?
The fact that I enjoy social use social media and AI, even though I have complicated feelings about the ethics of the companies building them, including the impact of expansion of data centers. This doesn't have to be all or nothing!
"Yet you participate in society, curious! I'm very intelligent."
I think in this case that’s not exactly right. TikTok isn’t exactly foundational to our society, you can get by without it.
Smart phone or other things this sentence is usually trotted out for not so much.
Tiktok isn't. But how many people can get by without using any service that depends on datacenters?
Many people. I bet I could. You only need cash.
A ridiculous gotcha on a site where every other article is about using AI to automate your job, solve frontier math problems, or port old video games to new platforms. So to be clear nothing is our fault here? It's all just about the billionaires "making us" use AI for all these things?
If my government just decided to wire $1B account into my personal account without strings attached I'd 100% accept that in ecstasy. So if I say "spending money this way is unfair" I'm a hypocrite???
Or maybe, just maybe, one can acknowledge that a thing benefits them personally isn't necessarily justified for the whole country or humanity as a whole, and admitting this makes them less hypocritical?
Companies do mandate AI usage from the top, no?
One of the nice things about living in a rich country is the ability to externalise certain costs.
Just not latency.
at least you're honest about it
Exactly. We need a word for this common mixture of naïveté, hypocrisy, small-mindedness, and petulance.
Common pattern:
"I'm campaigning against A."
"But you want B, which clearly is caused by A."
"I don't care!"
The problem is that they often will never suffer from their irrational campaigns because the campaigns are prevented by other powers, so they don't learn that they were irrational; or they do suffer from it, but only much later and in an unspecific way, so they never connect the dots and again don't learn from it.