> >"A lot of opposition to data centers isn't about specific claimed benefits/drawbacks, but the fact that the people behind them are known to be bad actors."
>HN commenters favouring data centers never seem to address this either. It
>appears they just don't get it.
Can you point me to some comments favouring data centers? I know people get the opinion that I favour things that I do not because I challenge unsupported claims against them. I have a tendency to defend against any criticism that I feel to be unfair. This seems to conflict with a point of view that any argument that moves people to your cause is a good argument, whether it is valid or not. The sense that perception is truth is ingrained into a lot of people subconsciously, and there are a cynical few who believe it explicitly.
The problem with the "known to be bad actors" argument is that an action is assumed to be done with bad intentions because they are bad actors, which is then used as evidence that they are bad actors.
There are definitely bad actions, and each should be addressed. There are few organisations that perform bad actions as a goal. Religion and other ideologies followed to a similar extent can provide that. Self interest rarely does. This is where Larry the Lawnmower becomes a useful demonstration, A lawnmower is not your enemy, even if it does chop your hand off.
>If someone does not like "AI" software nor the people behind it, then it makes little sense to argue about electricity, water, eminent domain, etc.
People know this. But they also know that not liking something (and I think hate is not too strong a word for the depth of feeling here) just because of what it is, is prejudice. People do not want to be bigots so they argue the issues. Electricity, Water, intellectual property, competition for work, intellectual property, privacy, etc. Those are all individual issues each with their own properties. If a person has a wide variety of individual issues like that and they decide against a single thing like AI, then there are only a few options. It is either a massive coincidence, a sign of prejudice, or the coordinated work of someone who is explicitly aligned against you.
The same would, of course, would have to be true for those people aligned against you. If all of their thoughts supported one result they would be similarly be prejudiced. So if you take the path of assuming they are against you, you cannot accept that they would do anything to address your concerns.
This leads to what was stated above
>Closed-loop cooling systems? “I don’t believe them.” Paying millions in taxes? “I don’t believe them.” Creating a thousand jobs? “I don’t believe them.” I hear a reflexive skepticism of every claim.
I'm not even sure that what the article says is true when they say
"Back in San Francisco, it is striking how little the AI industry understands its own unpopularity"
I think there is an awareness, but also a sense that there is nothing that can be done except ignore it. If they do the bad thing, they will be vilified. If they do the good thing, no-one will believe it and they will be vilified. Once trust has been lost, there is no point in engaging. Any attempt to regain trust would be seen as an attempt at further manipulation.
We live in a world where people will look you in the eye and say with absolute certainty that the fact that "Don't be evil" was taken out of the Google code supports the idea they are bad actors.
Yet to this day, the last line of their code of conduct says...
"And remember... don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!
Last updated July 16, 2026"
People will say that with such confidence that, If I say it is not true, they enthusiastically search it up, express surprise that the "don't be evil" is still there, and then say that it means nothing, because it's their actions that matter.
...and that is the truth. It _is_ their actions that matter. That's precisely what I push back on things that claim to know what their actions will be based upon some hidden state that they believe can be divined. The sense of certainty that they are malevolent, because they did a thing that was interpreted as a bad thing because they were assumed to be malevolent.
People, organisations, corporations, and governments can all do bad things. They can all do good things. We can judge their deeds better than we can judge their intentions.
Perhaps instead of "We don't believe you" people could just start with "I would like to believe you, show me how"