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:<p>"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.<p>"Our electrical bills will go up" - They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid<p>"Noise" - It's an hour away from any structure on a stinky swamp north of the Salt Lake<p>"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.<p>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.<p>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?<p>Edit: I checked. This is going to use 162 million less gallons per year than the farm.
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?<p>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.<p>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?<p>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.<p>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
> They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid<p>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.<p>> They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid<p>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.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/musks-ai-power-plant-generates-sound-fury-mississippi-rcna258594" rel="nofollow">https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/musks-ai-power-plant-ge...</a>
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.
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)<p><a href="https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/united-states" rel="nofollow">https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/united-states</a><p><a href="https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2" rel="nofollow">https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2</a>
...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.
But what about this guy's small town with a population of under 10k????????
Put your money where your mouth is.<p>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.<p>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.
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<p>Your argument conveniently ignores that electricity is <i>tiny</i> fraction of the average American's budget, which is <i>far</i> more heavily weighted toward housing, gas, and groceries. This argument is <i>extremely</i> tenuous.<p>> for the sake of shareholder value<p>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.
> Data centers are being built because there's demand for them from people who want to use AI, like me<p>No they aren't<p>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<p>They aren't benevolently trying to help you out, they just want your money.<p>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.
If I get a vote about new economic activity, and it makes me personally poorer, I'm going to need a <i>very</i> good argument as to why I should permit it. Or, you know, pay me.<p>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.<p>Instead Altman says it will destroy the world: <a href="https://www.techradar.com/pro/quote-of-the-day-by-sam-altman-ai-will-probably-most-likely-lead-to-the-end-of-the-world-but-in-the-meantime-therell-be-great-companies-the-dichotomy-between-grave-existential-risks-and-economic-nirvana" rel="nofollow">https://www.techradar.com/pro/quote-of-the-day-by-sam-altman...</a><p>So it's bad for the world <i>according to its proponents</i>, and at the same time, a bad neighbour? Why would anyone <i>not</i> vote against it given those?
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.
I mean, if the new economic activity primarily serves to further enrich the wealthy then ya, that seems like a reasonable stance.
It will accelerate the shift to solar for residential purposes.<p>That’s a great thing.
everyone gets a better grid.
Sure, but who pays for it?<p>If the data center which <i>requires</i> 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!<p>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.<p>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.<p><a href="https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy" rel="nofollow">https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy</a>
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.<p>/s
> They're using natural gas to generate electricity.<p>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.<p>> This is economic growth and a good thing.<p>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.
It sounds like your town needs a monorail! Well, sir, there's nothing on earth like a genuine, bona fide, electrified, six-car monorail!<p>> 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.<p>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?
> 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.<p>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?
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.<p>(Farms don’t employ many people either.)
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<p>Got any hard numbers on the tax revenue? I am skeptical because typically these projects receive tax payer money.<p>> Not to mention the nuclear power plant being built in response to the DC<p>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?<p>According to the county FAQ: <a href="https://www.boxeldercountyut.gov/661/Stratos-Page-FAQ-Page" rel="nofollow">https://www.boxeldercountyut.gov/661/Stratos-Page-FAQ-Page</a><p>> What tax revenue is expected?<p>> 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.
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.<p>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.
> My town is dying. Main street is depressing.<p>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.
Who is paying for the natural gas pipeline extension? Who is upgrading the upstream supply to manage the extra demand?
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.<p>Now you could argue that billionaires, their investors and loan sharks should be allowed to buy up gas —perfectly <i>legal</i>— 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 <i>want</i> 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?<p>AFAIK recent data centers are all either:<p>1. connected to the existing grid, or<p>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.
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.<p>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.
The project that just failed near me in WY was setup to be very similar.
> They're generating their own electricity<p>Yeah, from natgas right? Or maybe diesel generators? Or are they building one of the practically nonexistent green energy data centers?
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?"<p>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.
You live in Snowville?<p>> They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid<p>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.<p>Otherwise, I generally agree with you. I'm familiar with the area.<p>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.
How are they generating this electricity without competing for resources generally?<p>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.
If the concern is non-localized resource or debt contention how is it different from any business?<p>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?<p>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...<p>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.<p>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?
<i>> 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.</i><p>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?<p>I think people would be more open to the data center buildout if the data center projects built their own clean energy infrastructure
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 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.
It's literally illegal to build apartments almost everywhere.
>We can't tell someone that it's illegal to use their land<p>We the voters 100% can.
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
Gas turbine generators which were originally designed for temporary use and don't meet the emissions regulations of a power plant?
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...
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
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?
<i>"Why do you think you get a say on what happens in my home?"</i><p>also you<p>* <i>"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><p>* <i>"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."</i><p>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?<p>That is tough, and it is why it's so important to maintain one's reputation.<p>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.<p>"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.<p>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.<p>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.
It's the same reason politicians won't house illegal immigrants in their home.
Because in Ontario, where his mansion is located, the government hasn't been approving such projects and is facing pressure not to. (<a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/12134754/ford-government-to-approve-ai-data-centres-sooner-rather-than-later-amid-moratorium-calls/" rel="nofollow">https://globalnews.ca/news/12134754/ford-government-to-appro...</a>) 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.
[dead]
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.<p>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.<p>Seriously what’s peoples problem?<p>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 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.<p>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.<p>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'll use too much water." - It's going to use less water than the farm that used to run on this land.<p>It uses less water than many other things, too, I'm sure.<p>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).
> "Noise" - It's an hour away from any structure on a stinky swamp north of the Salt Lake<p>A major noise concern is the infrasound, which could be a problem even an hour away, since it travels further than regular noise<p>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"
> "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.<p>So the farm is no longer there? As in it is using zero water right now?<p>> "Our electrical bills will go up" - They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid<p>Serious doubt. They will use whichever is cheaper, and that's going to be the grid.
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?<p>As a Coloradoan I'd be for it since it would save a little water from the Colorado River.<p>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?<p>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?<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Utah" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Utah</a>
This is why it's important for government to be built on principles and law, not merely on popular opinion.<p>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 <i>directly</i>. 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 ever-expanding centralized permissions systems based on unaccountable surveillance databases, freedom to use computing technology that serves your own interests, freedom to partake in a competitive market 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. In an ideal world, most of the existing data centers would never have been built, because people would be using computing technology under their own control rather than authoritarian-by-design "cloud" traps.
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.
> It's going to use less water than the farm<p>A farm produces food. It seems the residents actually understand the issue better.<p>> They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid<p>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.<p>> "Noise"<p>Stinky swamps don't dampen the disruptive noise to nature. People [should] have a right to preserve the environment they live in.<p>> "Wildlife refuge"<p>I think this is the worst in the list. It doesn't have to be half inside the refuge to be destructive.<p>These all seem to be valid criticisms, without a practical response. Defending such monumentally impactful project needs stronger reasoning.
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?<p>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 <i>more</i> 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 <i>not</i> on my bingo card
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".
The natural gas they are burning is being bought from the market and that will more than likely lead to increased natural gas costs.
> 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.<p>This is the crux of the whole thing is it not? People want money into their communities and even more into their pockets:<p><a href="https://nationalsecurity.virginia.edu/research/what-americans-want-data-centers" rel="nofollow">https://nationalsecurity.virginia.edu/research/what-american...</a><p>But not everything turns out fine:<p><a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/richland-parish-teachers-50-000-204500625.html" rel="nofollow">https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/richland-p...</a><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'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.<p>But farms are necessary and datacenters are not.<p>>"Our electrical bills will go up" - They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid<p>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.<p>>"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.<p>Probably irrelevant, as people would just build something else that's bad for wildlife.
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.<p>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.
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.
"They're generating their own electricity and excess power will be put back into the grid"<p>How are they generating that electricity though? If it's fossil fuels, then that's not very sustainable.<p>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.<p>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.
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.
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.
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?<p>Where the rich and powerful are involved, maybe it's better not to take the risk.
> 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.<p>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?
> "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.<p>comparing water for food(?) is a bit crazy to compare water for AI speculation<p>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
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.
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 <a href="https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2026/05/07/utahs-data-center-could-create/" rel="nofollow">https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2026/05/07/utahs-dat...</a>
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.<p>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 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.
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
> This is going to bring a LOT of money to my county<p>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?
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.<p>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.<p>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?"<p>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.<p>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.
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.
Has anyone said they don't like Kevin Oleary? That's usually good enough.
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.<p>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".<p>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?<p>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.
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.
Did you research the reasons in favor building it with the same rigor? What was the outcome?
> This is going to bring a LOT of money to my county<p>How much?
Just come to Georgia and talk to actual people living here after a data center moved in. You know, like this: <a href="https://youtu.be/4A6NECilAls" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/4A6NECilAls</a><p>Also: Why the actual fuck is it taking AOC (who doesn't even live here) to ask these questions and connect the dots publicly.<p>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.<p>"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.
Maybe what we need is better messaging from the people building data centers.<p>WHY do we need infinity data centers? To "win" the AI race? Tell us in quantifiable terms what constitutes "winning."<p>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.<p>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.
> I really just have to come to the conclusion that we have a tiktok informed voting block here.<p>i thought personal attacks and perjoratives arent allowed on HN? hmm
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.<p>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.<p>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.
But then what's the implication here? Why would there be large scale propaganda or otherwise effort <i>against</i> 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.
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 <i>are</i> 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 :)<p>ps. Have never used tiktok
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?<p>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.<p>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.<p>I think it’s rational to pull the levers you have, when the industry is predicting something close to the apocalypse.<p>Yes it’s mostly vibes, but until the industry stops acting like fucking nutters. I’m voting on vibes.
The claim was that they generate power and can feed back into the grid, that requires a grid connection.<p>If they have a grid connection, they are going to take power from the grid when cheaper than generating power.
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.<p>Also these buildings will be abandoned within the next couple years as models move more towards the edge.
> 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.<p>The policy-informed theory of How The Rich Are Irrationally Hated.
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.<p>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've had people ask me if I'm worried that the new data center will spy on me. What?<p>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.
> <i>The county is gaining water from this</i><p>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…<p><i>Some</i> 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? <a href="https://www.theaquaponicsource.com/data-center-heat-reuse/" rel="nofollow">https://www.theaquaponicsource.com/data-center-heat-reuse/</a>
People are pissed that Big Tech/VC/SV has taken over <i>seemingly everything</i>, enshittified it, and enriched the enshittifiers (while the economy has gotten worse for nearly everyone else, and Big Tech's <i>fucking insane</i> 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 <i>post hoc ergo propter hoc</i> or temporal-correlation-as-causation going on here too.<p>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.
data centers = billionare scheme to take all our jobs away and enslave us.<p>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.<p>If you think Flock cameras are bad, you have no idea the kind of surveillance the Chinese government uses on their people.<p>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.
According to <i>The Reverse Centaur’s Guide</i>,[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.<p>Maybe people who don’t quite like that should be more articulate about it rather than using seeming <i>post hoc</i> 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.<p>[1] <a href="https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374621575/thereversecentaursguidetolifeafterai/" rel="nofollow">https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374621575/thereversecenta...</a>
What part of it sounds satirical to you? It's all true.<p>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:<p>"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]<p>"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]<p>Altman is a little more cautious and thinks (out loud, I doubt he actually does) we'll all be artists on UBI, or something:<p>"[...] 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]<p>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.<p>[1] <a href="https://darioamodei.com/essay/machines-of-loving-grace#3-economic-development-and-poverty" rel="nofollow">https://darioamodei.com/essay/machines-of-loving-grace#3-eco...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://eletric-vehicles.com/tesla/tesla-q2-earnings-here-are-the-questions-musk-will-answer/" rel="nofollow">https://eletric-vehicles.com/tesla/tesla-q2-earnings-here-ar...</a><p>[3] all on X, <a href="https://x.com/sama" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/sama</a>
It is indeed very easy:<p><a href="https://fortune.com/2025/05/28/anthropic-ceo-warning-ai-job-loss/" rel="nofollow">https://fortune.com/2025/05/28/anthropic-ceo-warning-ai-job-...</a><p><a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/26/sam-altman-on-ai-jobs-may-go-away-but-massive-abundance-likely.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/26/sam-altman-on-ai-jobs-may-go...</a>
Replacing human jobs should be the dream of all people. You want humans doing drudgery when it could be automated by machines? Why?<p>> 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.<p>— Oscar Wilde, “The Soul of Man Under Socialism,” Fortnightly Review, February 1891
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?<p>i mentioned it in my comment too<p>> 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.<p>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<p>That's unfortunate, as manual labor will be the only thing left if AI companies have their way.
[dead]
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.