Most people there seriously don’t give a shit about AI. They care about maintaining the peace, quiet, and purity of their land. Because they enjoy it.
Many of you miss the perspective because you’ve never been there.
421–430 of 464 posts
Most people there seriously don’t give a shit about AI. They care about maintaining the peace, quiet, and purity of their land. Because they enjoy it.
Many of you miss the perspective because you’ve never been there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost anything can be mitigated at some cost - but it has to be determined what those mitigations are, and then demand them. Many municipalities are unequipped to deal with a "datacenter" because on paper it is the same as an office building (that draws a lot of power), where it should be treated like an industrial site (rail yard, factory).
Large industrial customers often have to sign up to load-shedding agreements wiith grid operators in times of peak grid load. Can datacenters load shed when requested? If not, they should be paying a premium/spot market prices for power if they arent participating in load management.
Local utility would ask them to shunt to the generators now and then during potential rolling blackout situations.
I feel like this is always the case with new technology. People had the same reaction to the invention of the printing press. New is scary. It doesn't mean there aren't valid concerns, but unfortunately this feels a bit like an inevitability. The focus shouldn't be on stopping it, but how to maximize the gains and minimize the losses to the local communities where these are being built.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the whole voting population came together and said we’d like to pay ourselves $100,000 in straight cash today by borrowing it from future generations. Should they be able to do it in the name of direct democracy? Blocking all future growth due to aesthetic reasons is 10x worse, atleast the $100,000 could be meaningfully spent now.
Who decides things if not the entire voting population? There's nothing inherently wrong with your suggestion, if it's what everyone wants. We've been doing it for a century, see the national debt. But people like their kids, so we restrain it. People don't want a society full of desperation, so we restrain it. People want a strong nation, so we restrain it. It's not a crazy hypothetical, it's how the system works. H…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That are paid (if not avoided) at the location of the owner, not the location of the dc. Datacenters really aren't that good for the locals. Low property tax, just tens of jobs but very high infrastructure needs.
I live in Northern VA, the world capital of data centers and can co-sign this. they bring absolutely nothing other than our electric bills have literally doubled in the last 24 or so months
To all the dopes wondering why people hate your data center contribution craze so much this is why.
Don’t know why it needs to be spelled out so explicitly. It’s obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temp. I’ve seen it all over the country at this point. People are really made when their bills get real expensive.
I live in Maine. Commercial power is crazy expensive. I don't know why you would build an AI datacenter here in the first place. As an obsessive self-hoster, I've researched building one, and there is no universe in which it makes sense. New Hampshire and Massachusetts are so nearby latency-wise.
Abundant access to a source of cooling can help offset high grid prices. Well places centres can a ton of money that way.
Up north comes with it's own issues for Datacenters. Winter low humidity (kills cable/wire insulation), chiller freeze protection can get pretty complex to set up properly (with failures causing complete destruction of some components that will need multi-ton cranes to replace), and multi-year construction projects are harder with real winters. Sure it's all perfectly manageable engineering wise, but why bother.
There's probably easier green energy credits down south, given the current viability of solar.
Such a law illustrates the beauty of federalism. Texas and other states can have them if they want them! Maine has not nearly as much space and much more natural beauty to protect [per square mile], so it can and maybe should have a different set of rules. That's cool.
This is a recipe for creating dead retiree states. Just NIMBY everything, NIMBY the power sources[1] [2], then complain about a lack of power so NIMBY any type of new industrial . Now do this for housing, new sources of water anything a person younger than 40 would need and you basically get a state full of retirees..and oh would you look at that! [3]. Now the question is, why wouldn't all states eventually do this w…
Sorry people aren't bending over backwards to help your AI start-up get VC funding, but maybe if y'all were a bit more honest, people wouldn't hate the infrastructure you're desperately trying to install in their backyard. Because it sure as shit isn't going in yours, is it?
I feel like this is always the case with new technology. People had the same reaction to the invention of the printing press. New is scary. It doesn't mean there aren't valid concerns, but unfortunately this feels a bit like an inevitability. The focus shouldn't be on stopping it, but how to maximize the gains and minimize the losses to the local communities where these are being built.
>
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that really the primary concern about datacenters? Their aesthetics? I thought the major problem with them was that they muscle in on valuable resources like water and electricity, consuming what would otherwise be used by people, and driving the prices up.
Data centers use a lot of electricity but negligible water.
They are definitely driving up electric costs for residential customers, though (along with EVs and heat pumps) which is a major problem.