Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Data centers trigger voter backlash

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 421 posts

Re: Data centers trigger voter backlash

#231

Post by Timon3 »

spongebobstoes wrote: post #60
Timon3 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And now discovery is becoming exponentially harder, because every niche can get flooded with AI slop by companies trying to extract profits from real people's creativity. Even if you use these tools to create something amazing, what keeps hundreds of variations "inspired by, but totally not copied" of your creative work from popping up? As these models get cheaper and more powerful, this issue will only get worse and…

this is the same argument against the printing press, photography, home printers, youtube, etc it is a bad argument. more accessible tools consistently lead to more creation in a positive way

There is a fundamental difference between those technologies and generative AI. I ask again: what stops companies from creating literally dozens, hundreds or thousands of copies of any creative work you publish? Why shouldn't they create AI artists that copy small artists in a "legally distinct" manner, and at a volume that drowns them out?

As these models get better and better, the only limiting factor is the available compute. Meanwhile data centers are being built like there's no tomorrow.

Re: Data centers trigger voter backlash

#232

Post by junglistguy »

pesus wrote: post #169
lelandfe wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely you have some measure of empathy for their position? I’m sure you certainly did in 08, as people lost their homes. I think it’s a topic that’s scary to many and this datacenter-to-be, or the local banker, just happens to be what they can easily protest.

[flagged]

[dead]

Re: Data centers trigger voter backlash

#233

Post by sanid »

esikich wrote: post #196
thewillowcat wrote: post #93

I can tell you, based on local examples, that politicians are setting up deals to bring in data centers without trying to build community support first. Not only that, they are often signing NDAs that prohibit them from telling voters what they have agreed to. It's no way to operate in a democracy, and voters are right to be angry.

I don't understand why people think they should be able to vote on things like this. Especially when they lack the necessary credentials to have an informed opinion on it.

So what are the topics people should be able to vote on? I don't think people have the necessary credentials to vote on immigration, drug price regulation, social media regulation? Why let people vote at all, they don't know anything apparently.

Re: Data centers trigger voter backlash

#234

Post by metaopai »

Datacenters are a hedge the investor class is pushing and it's not really needed.

Once you realize:

1) LLM = CPU 2) Session Context = L1, L2, L3, CPU Cache

the entire AI industry is operating within the CPU cache of the LLM provider this is why cost moves quadratically, increases noise - signal ration, regenerative feedback loop, it dilutes the user narration, and it actually creates an architectural induce hallucination.

We've literally solved this problem in the 1960's with a memory architecture:

the OS has a memory controller, tasked with taking data from persistant structure storage (HD) loading into CPU Cache and the CPU computers, the output is stored in RAM and then moved into HD.

this is required on all AI applications, what the industry has done, is supplement a RAG which is summarizing context, however the entire context summarized chain is still being processed by the LLM.

if you employ a well sustain memory architecture you can retrieve the context you only need to feed to the llm. reduce token cost and then reduce energy therefore less demand of datacenters.

checkout my article and what i built metaop.ai it's a humble promotion but no one cares about ai memory. https://x.com/metaopai/status/2070187664192524528

Re: Data centers trigger voter backlash

#235

Post by miiiiiike »

catapart wrote: post #225
miiiiiike wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s all you got out of my comment? What do you propose building next to the dump? South of the airport? Zoned for heavy industrial use. A playground?

All I got out of any of your comments is 'my psuedo-libertarian disposition has rotted my brain past the ability to understand why the problems with megastructure ghost towns are obvious to and unliked by normal people'

I lived in Northern Virginia, data center capital of the US. It’s far from a “megastructure ghost town”. It’s nice. You should visit.

One stat that I read was that data centers comprised 3% of the total land in NOVA but accounted for almost 50% of property tax income.

Where did you get libertarian from? I EXPLICITLY stated that I was against powering data centers with the souls of orphans. Twice.

I like taxes. I like regulations. I dislike using the souls of orphans in industrial activities.

Not exactly card carrying libertarian material.

Re: Data centers trigger voter backlash

#236

Post by irishcoffee »

jyounker wrote: post #212
anthonypasq wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can tell you, based on local examples, that politicians are setting up deals to bring in data centers without trying to build community support first. Not only that, they are often signing NDAs that prohibit them from telling voters what they have agreed to. It's no way to operate in a democracy, and voters are right to be angry. People believing they are entitled to dictate what other people do with their proper…

> People believing they are entitled to dictate what other people do with their property, or believing they should have some say in the "character" of their neighborhood that involves non-public land just doesnt make any sense to me. Would you like me to buy the lot next to your house and set up a 3000W sound system pumping noise music 24 hours directly at your bedroom? Because that's what you're arguing for.

Generally the law concerning this is called: “disturbing the peace” and is not tolerated.

Re: Data centers trigger voter backlash

#237

Post by hdgvhicv »

esikich wrote: post #205
e40 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Construction jobs, yes. After that, a skeleton crew and a bunch of people in far off places, possibly outside the country.

So? Since when is there a floor for the number of jobs a business has to create? Suzies Tanning Salon uses a lot of energy but only employs 3 people.

So maybe 50kW for 10 hours a day? Double it and call it 1Mwh a day.

A 1GW DC would have to employ 75,000 people if that’s an acceptable ratio.

Re: Data centers trigger voter backlash

#238

Post by micro2588 »

miiiiiike wrote: post #222
micro2588 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in PJM they are almost entirely being powered by natural gas and coal? Even if you contract out power from a nuclear plant some other plant on the grid is now enjoying a higher capacity factor, at the margin natural gas. The data center in question in Utah was marketed as a 9GW full build out natural gas facility more than twice the electrical generation of the entire state. Coal electrical production in the US i…

I don’t defend every data center everywhere. I’m talking about the proposed data center about 11 miles from my door. In my area we have a nuclear generating station 16 miles from that site. It sells 80-85% of all power generate wholesale to other markets. We have the power infrastructure here.

The amount of nuclear generation is roughly fixed (minus the refurbishment of three mile) in that region. If you add additional large load to the grid and outbid other demand for that power you are just shifting the load you replaced to other sources, which in PJM region would be mostly gas (new or existing) and delaying the decommissioning of existing base load coal plants. Renewables in that region are unfortunately a small percent of electrical generation.

I do agree that other demands like water consumption are overblown and could be largely regulated to enforce best practices. What infrastructure we are building as a society to meet this load demand is going to be the lasting impact of this generational infrastructure investment and it's looking like that will be mostly fossil fuel based in the near to mid term.

Re: Data centers trigger voter backlash

#239

Post by kokanee »

anthonypasq wrote: post #167
thewillowcat wrote: post #93

I can tell you, based on local examples, that politicians are setting up deals to bring in data centers without trying to build community support first. Not only that, they are often signing NDAs that prohibit them from telling voters what they have agreed to. It's no way to operate in a democracy, and voters are right to be angry.

> I can tell you, based on local examples, that politicians are setting up deals to bring in data centers without trying to build community support first. Not only that, they are often signing NDAs that prohibit them from telling voters what they have agreed to. It's no way to operate in a democracy, and voters are right to be angry. People believing they are entitled to dictate what other people do with their proper…

So many of these conversations come back to the problem of privatized gains and socialized losses.

Most things that create value have externalities. I kill the moss on my roof, then it rains and the chemicals go into the stream, then you try to go fishing and get skunked. I exerted my freedom as a private property owner and got the benefits; you paid for the drawbacks. We're all pulling from the same pile of resources, and the Earth doesn't care where your picket fence is.

Data centers incur expensive externalities and you're asking the general public to bear those costs -- or "pay those taxes," if that resonates more. I suppose NIMBYism is part of it, but we're not talking about ugly condos here, we're talking about towns running out of electricity: https://fortune.com/2026/05/12/lake-tahoe-data-center-49000-....

Re: Data centers trigger voter backlash

#240

Post by xp84 »

stvltvs wrote: post #176
sokoloff wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say the distributions from automated water heaters/boilers, washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerators replacing “ice boxes”, looms, assembly lines, farming combines, electric starter motors, and automated PCB assembly have been overwhelmingly good for people across a very broad spectrum of society. Is that what you’re also looking at? Or objecting to the rewards rightly earned for bringing such advances to…

We should be happy with a disproportionate amount of wealth going to rent seekers because they let us buy their goods and work in their companies making them even wealthier? The wealthy always skew the rules to favor themselves, e.g. US capital gains being taxed at a lower rate than labor. The global standard of living has been going up but could be even higher if wealth was distributed more justly.

> but could be even higher if wealth was distributed more justly.

Unfalsifiable claim since we can't predict what could have been if things had been done completely differently. But, Cuba distributes wealth more justly, so where are all the innovators coming out of Cuba? Where is the quality of life?

In fact, there are undoubtedly more Cubans building things, inventing things, and performing valuable services in the US than there are in Cuba, because in the US we allow you to be rewarded for providing something valuable to society.

If you turn the country into a wealth-redistribution paradise, the smartest people will all go somewhere else, because people don't want to work purely "For the Motherland." They want to help their country and provide for their own family's wellbeing too.

History has provided examples of this, but to top off their failure to deliver higher quality of life, most nations that established themselves explicitly to ensure fair distribution of wealth couldn't even restrain their elites from gorging at the "communal" trough to the point the commoners suffered great deprivation.

Post reply on HN