The article seems to be saying that lack of equity is worse than lack of innovation. Obviously we can strive for having both equity and innovation, but it really seems like the points made in the article are arguing that, for example, if there exists a discrepancy in what speeds are available to different people, this is worse than only the lowest speed being available to everyone. The linked article from 1973 is ver…
A Speed Limit for Computers
21–30 of 31 posts
Re: A Speed Limit for Computers
#22Though no one cares, I feel compelled to put down my 2 cents. Such a "speed limit" is an unfathomably bad idea, in every way, and moreover is a violation of fundamental human rights. I deeply oppose it. That is all.
I don't know if it's a bad idea or not, but I'm struggling to understand how the idea as presented in the post would be a violation of fundamental human rights. Do you care to elaborate?
Nowadays calling something "a violation of fundamental human rights" often really just means "I really don't like it."
Re: A Speed Limit for Computers
#23Re: A Speed Limit for Computers
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
What truth? The whole article is absurd. Speed limits exist to reduce fatalities, not reduce inequality. Road speed limits in my area have been increasing, not decreasing, as road designs have improved. Distance didn't scale with speed either - the West was settled well before the automobile.
> Speed limits exist to reduce fatalities In the USA the national speed limit was implemented by Richard Nixon in response to the oil crisis of 1973. The motive was to reduce energy consumption, not to reduce fatalities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law
Re: A Speed Limit for Computers
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you might build a data center that poisons a community's water and drives up the cost of energy for your neighbors. We can't pretend there are zero negative externalities that accompany unconstrained compute. To be clear I'm not necessarily agreeing with the idea, but to be fair, there's more to it than you're suggesting.
Data centers don't poison a community's water and the people claiming that they do are lying because they dislike generative AI and want to weaponize populist environmentalist sentiment and state regulations against the institutions doing AI inference and training. They also don't particularly drive up the cost of energy any more than any other phenomenon in human society that uses energy, and the right solution to t…
[1] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/epa-to-... [2] https://www.wyomingnews.com/news/local_news/cheyenne-bopu-tr...
As for energy: honestly I agree with you that the solution is to build more power generation capacity, but that doesn't change the fact that in the meantime energy prices are already increasing substantially in many areas because of data centers [3].
[3] https://www.eenews.net/articles/data-centers-drive-76-surge-...
Re: A Speed Limit for Computers
#26Artificial limits or more regulation might not be the answer, yet post-AI scarcity can lead us to interesting places.
Re: A Speed Limit for Computers
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if it's a bad idea or not, but I'm struggling to understand how the idea as presented in the post would be a violation of fundamental human rights. Do you care to elaborate?
> I don't know if it's a bad idea or not, but I'm struggling to understand how the idea as presented in the post would be a violation of fundamental human rights. Do you care to elaborate? Nowadays calling something "a violation of fundamental human rights" often really just means "I really don't like it."
Restricting computers, morally, is like restricting the printing press. Many people look back on the latter with disdain, and today want to censor the Internet.
Re: A Speed Limit for Computers
#28Re: A Speed Limit for Computers
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Data centers don't poison a community's water and the people claiming that they do are lying because they dislike generative AI and want to weaponize populist environmentalist sentiment and state regulations against the institutions doing AI inference and training. They also don't particularly drive up the cost of energy any more than any other phenomenon in human society that uses energy, and the right solution to t…
I'm not anti-AI or anti-data center, in fact I lean more towards "pro-AI" overall, but to say that everyone who claims data centers can contaminate water is lying is a strong claim that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. If they're saying "every data center without exception poisons water" then sure, they're lying, but that's certainly not what I'm saying. A couple examples from this year are linked below. I underst…
The thing that Wyoming News describes happening was:
- a construction contractor working on building a data center for Meta was using normal utility water for some construction purpose that might have been related to preparing the building's coolant system for use (the article is actually not clear about whether that was the specific source of the water), and then discharging it into the normal sanitary sewer system
- the local utility district was doing routine testing of their wastewater for fecal bacteria and accidentally discovered "Cupriavidus gilardii is a rare type of bacteria found naturally in the environment, such as in soil and water", which they tracked down to the construction discharges
- because the city of Cheyenne uses reclaimed and treated wastewater for some irrigation purposes, and because this bacteria has a risk of being harmful to immunocompromised people, out of an abundance of caution the utility district banned the construction project from discharging wastewater into the sanitary sewer
- it's still unclear exactly where the bacteria was coming from
These facts strike me as basically having nothing at all to do with data centers being harmful in a way that literally any other aspect of the built human environment isn't. Every construction site for anything uses water industrially and discharges it somehow. It's basically normal for wastewater to have bacteria in it, because it's wastewater - and ignoring the fact that it's not clear the bacteria have anything to do with the construction site being a data center as opposed to any other type of building - it's not clear that this type of bacteria being in the wastewater is actually harmful to anything. Every time I've seen reclaimed wastewater being used for irrigation somewhere I've seen signs posted saying so, in order to prevent people from thinking that the water is potable or treated.
The article says "Instead, BOPU now requires industrial companies using closed-loop cooling systems to construct separate collection systems so any water from cooling equipment or associated floor drains is directed into storage tanks, rather than the city’s sanitary sewer." and I'm frankly extremely skeptical that this is a good policy. It makes constructing a building that uses a closed-loop cooling system more expensive, which includes (some) data centers but also lots of other types of building, and I don't think there's any reason to assume that the health risk from this bacteria being in wastewater justifies the cost, nor that the policy even prevents this bacteria from getting into the wastewater.
I'm sure that despite Meta's public words about "being a good neighbor in Cheyenne", the people actually working on this project are pretty pissed off at the local utility district officials for making their job harder and more expensive, and I don't think they're wrong to feel this way. And I strongly suspect that the reason this story is being spread, and possibly the reason the journalists at the Wyoming Tribune Eagle chose to write about it to begin with, is because it involves the keywords "data center" and "water" and superficially seems bad. Certainly if this same incident happened during the construction of, say, a grocery store, I'd be unlikely to hear about it - unless a lot of journalists had an ideological problem with that grocery store, in which they'd report about it in exactly the same terms they're reporting on this incident.
Re: A Speed Limit for Computers
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Speed limits exist to reduce fatalities In the USA the national speed limit was implemented by Richard Nixon in response to the oil crisis of 1973. The motive was to reduce energy consumption, not to reduce fatalities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law
As you might note in that link, the states already had their own speed limit laws in place, and that the national limit was later repealed. Thus, the speed limit laws are not in place to reduce gas usage.