The majority of people opposed AC current, cars, steam engines, rail tracks, airplanes, computers, the internet, and so on. There was always irrational fear present with new tech advances. People opposing data centers will not look any less foolish than those who opposed AC current.
I don't think the people who opposed those things look foolish even today. Most of those things, in their early days, were implemented haphazardly and with an incredible lack of regulatory oversight, and the reason they were not quite as disastrous as they could have been is that people opposed them.
And people opposing data centers today who are opposing unfettered data center creations will not look any *more* foolish than those who opposed the things you cite.
I used the softer word "foolish" - but in reality, they are idiots. Yes, they are, and they will look like idiots in the future when China wins the AI race. In the same way, nuclear opponents are idiots and have contributed to the decline in nuclear research in the West over the past 50 years (looking at you, Europe, especially Germany), while China keeps advancing its nuclear research (fission and fusion as well) and building nuclear plants to ensure its future energy independence and dominance.
What, exactly, are we racing for? Smarter chatboxes?
Nuclear plants are being forced to shut down in this heat wave, due to low river levels, as they don't have enough head pressure to run their cooling pumps and if they had different pumps their waste heat would sterilize the river. I'm sure China has no qualms about sterilising rivers but the next, hotter, heat wave will dry them up anyway, and they'll still have to turn the plants off.
Some of the reaction to data center build outs has become irrational but frankly I see it as a reflection of the arrogance of the billionaire tech elite. Voters were told:
- AI is going to take your jobs
- We need to build our data centers for this job stealing tool
- We need to build so quickly that there’s no time to do accurate assessments of what this will do to water or power supplies
Turns out people don’t like that. Who could have guessed? Anyone not living in a bubble.
"AI automating jobs", which is the narrative from tech bros to raise funding translates into "AI is going to take your job", for the average Joe. If you are a graphic designer that is now struggling to find work, why would you want a data centre in your town (or anywhere)?
Rejection (or fear) of AI translating into rejection of the physical infrastructure that supports it is perfectly reasonable.
People in UK opposed train tracks in steam engine days, saying that the train engine sound scares their horses and cattle. Ofcourse data centers are far worse. But it is amusing to see how humanity continues to oppose tech and the tech buldozes anyway, like a evil monster.
How are they "far worse"? Steam trains are noisy, polluting, require tons of coal, kill animals and people in their way, and crash fairly regularly (when built with 1800s technology).
A data center is a big grey box that sits there humming quietly, and that's it. They do require power and lots of it, but unlikely steam engines they'll happily use solar, nuclear or anything else.
The new AI ones are built below minimum standards as a cash grab and they somehow manage to be as loud as jet engines. I have no idea how they manage to achieve that, but I try to avoid denying reality. I agree that an ordinary non-AI data center is no worse than an office building without the people, but that isn't what's happening right now.
55db is lower than the noise floor in the average office. They were probably just measuring the background noise of regular-ass being outside.
For perspective, the inside of your home is probably about 40. When I turn on my box fan it's about 55.
That said they can be loud when the generators are running. It's possible that when the grid can't keep up the volume goes up, but thats not meant to be a long term state.
The answer to that is to outlaw running noisy generators. It probably already is. Most places already have noise pollution laws designed to harass teenagers with loud music. They should enforce them.
Force them to either install mufflers and proper exhausts on their generators or build their own power infrastructure. They don't now because nobody makes them and it would cost money.
People who don't want to spend money doing it right say that, but when the choice becomes "some money or no money" they always pick "some money". A few mufflers aren't going to ruin the economy of a deal that size.
It's like when California "destroyed the entire economy" by raising minimum wage. All the jobs are still there, prices are mostly the same. The only thing that moved were the goal posts.
That's inside the DC, right? I'd think that even with current generation GPUs the noise of the fans won't be audible outside the building but the cooling infra that is outside the building plus (backup) power generation through gas or diesel generators.
EDIT: recently I read about (I guess on HN) a new planned Amazon datacenter that was super environment-friendly. So in fact it might eventually be possible to create silent DCs but we'll see how this turns out.
Agreed in principle for today’s new ones, though with all the buying frenzy it quickly becomes hard to procure anything but the latest hardware and the economics of older generation hardware makes little sense for new data center deployments.
The data centers near me are pretty quiet. They’re set back from the road enough that they’re no louder than the background noise of traffic, wind, airplanes overhead, etc. I understand my small sample size doesn’t apply everywhere, but it does negate “all data centers are loud.” Some data centers might be loud.
You're comparing steam trains in practice to datacentres in theory. To give one example: the US federal government is suspending all sorts of environmental regulations relating to pollution, just for datacentres: why would they do that if datacentres ran on clean solar or nuclear?
Noise pollution is a real issue, even for data centers that is "humming quietly". Same for its energy consumption. Water cooling is another issue, given that lots of the steam a data center generates can rain down in places that wont make the water re-join the water lifecycle easily.
The linked article claims that sound can be heard "hundreds of feet from the data center". That is a very short range.
As much as I doubt that spreading of the data centers is a good thing, noise is not the weapon to wield. Unless we are talking the center of a quaint town. And possibly not even then.
I get why people wouldn't want (steam) trains in their proverbial back yard just as much as they wouldn't want datacenters. Trains may be a net benefit for a region's mobility and economy, but that doesn't undo the local disruption to people's environments. (I'm unconvinced datacenters have that impact on a region, it generates some jobs at best but most of those will be secondary/tertiary jobs. Primary jobs will be the people doing daily work in and around the site like security and maintenance, but the higher paid specialist work will be flown in or done remotely)
I disagree with the “evil monster” part, but thanks for sharing that example. I’ll probably use it the opposite way in meetings .. people were deeply skeptical of railways too, yet they ended up transforming society for the better.
It's not about opposing data centers, it's about opposing them close to where you live.
There's now a gargantuan amount of documentation about their impact:
- insane noise levels 24/7, you can hear them even at miles away
- virtually no jobs brought to the place, besides some construction work early on
- massive drain of local resources
- massive eye sore
Like, I'm not against data centers per se, but you tell me they building one few miles from my house, I'm listing it the day I hear it and escaping as far as I can.
It's almost like all of that is true and early train companies didn't even bring enough value to the area to offset all of that?
Trains still do that today. They cut a locality in half with only certain crossing points being allowed. But at least enough people ride the train they can feel it's worthwhile.
I tend to like not fearing starvation every year, not fearing freezing to death every year and not having the vast majority of my kids die. Industrialization led to all that.
The article is interesting, but I think it dances around what should be a central point, only approaching it obliquely. A lot of the 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.
> My conversations make me wonder if the technical content of data center deals is mostly beside the point. 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.
It's not reflexive; it's evidenced. Regardless of what big tech promises, or potential mitigations, everyone knows what tech companies do now. It's not a generalised small-town lack of trust in big city folks, it's a direct response to decades of extractive behaviour by the same companies and people.
Essentially, I think there's a proximal reputational problem for AI companies, which the article calls out, but the ultimate problem is factual. It's not an education/communication/negotiation issue, because the real problem is the underlying reality. The wolf at the door being distrusted is because it's a wolf, not PR.
As you say, the distrust is backed up by evidence and by their own personal experience of the same promises getting trotted out time after time, generation after generation.
These people, these communities, have been promised these same things before (or things adjacent to them) and have seen them not deliver, or even make their situation worse.
This is especially true of the tax income and job generation elements. The estimates provided as part of the deal are utterly divorced from reality- people know it and refuse to take part in the kayfabe that surrounds it.
The other part is: if there really is so much money in these, it should be easy for the companies to produce an actually good deal. Everyone can tell (after all these experiences) what bullshit smells like, when the deals are full of tricks. Why try the tricks--property taxes that pay eventually, jobs that will show up eventually, promises that electric bills won't go up--when you could guarantee the results, and guarantee the town won't be left holding the bag?
Well of course it's because the companies think they don't have to give a good deal. That they can get away with it.
One wonders if at this point they would have saved money not trying to fuck people over to get what they wanted. I hope so. The ideal world has companies doing things the honest way because it's honest, but I'd settle for them doing it that way because they're economically incentivized to do so.
mostly unrelated but amusing: I keep getting fliers from Google fiber trying to get me to switch. Every one has this one bizarre line in it: "our customers have never had their rates go up!"---as if I am too stupid to realize that is not a promise. Now, I have no idea if that works on other people. Maybe enough other people are stupid and don't notice that that's not a promise that turns out to be good ad copy. But I am personally so put off by the disrespectful attempt at manipulation that I consider switching less, even though it might well save me money. It is significantly worse for them, as a sales tactic, than if they had written nothing there at all.
You should switch to whatever is cheapest right now. If it gets more expensive, you should switch to whatever is cheapest right then. That's the market price signal that drives the good parts of capitalism.
that's one way of doing the calculation, which I do not subscribe to. The economic theory that markets develop according to the aggregate effects of rational actors does not invert into a moral imperative to you should do what money tells you. In fact it has no bearing on what one "should" do whatsoever.
As it happens they are competing on service quality and goodwill more than price (all will drop the price quite a bit if you ask because it's well over their costs and, bless, they are actually competing on price for once). I know that fiber's service is technically good but I resent Google enough that I will not give them money, all else being equal. Of course if I end up resenting the other providers more, maybe I would.
"We can't trust them" is the foundation of practically every conspiracy theory, though, from times immemorial. I remember people protesting against cell towers, and it was exactly what their arguments were built around: "We don't believe this thing won't fry our brains". It was the same before with electrical lines, and I guess steam power had its share too. Not telling a concerned citizen is obliged to trust everyone, marketing & propaganda were part of "underlying reality" for centuries at least. But frankly, you made it sound like it's a novel thing, a dark omen of evil AI times, or something.
This is an example of the same problem as the article; you're treating trust as entirely unrelated to reality. It can get out-of-step, but that's not the only possibility, and it's not the one we're facing here.
The problem with conspiracy theories is not that they're based on a lack of trust, but that they're not rational. Sometimes a lack of trust is perfectly rational.
Cell towers don't actually fry your brains. Steam powered trains don't move so fast you suffocate. However, the big tech CEOs are absolutely going to take your data and use it against you. They are going to build data centers that harm your community. The fear here is reasonable and evidenced.
This isn't unique to AI, but AI is the current iteration of the same problem. Sometimes people distrust outsiders because they're star-bellied sneetches, but sometimes they distrust them because they're the British empire. You can't treat all distrust as unreasoning.
>problem with conspiracy theories is not that they're based on a lack of trust, but that they're not rational.
Rationality isn't some sort of absolute parameter, it's determined wrt available information. And with information coming from outside it's certainly an issue of trust.
FWIW such unconditional claim as "DC will harm your community" is a shiny example of this, as you don't even care to talk about a particular DC, and obviously cases (community problems, and interests, and the way a DC placed or build) can vary a lot. Apparently, you just don't believe them at all, don't you?
>You can't treat all distrust as unreasoning.
I don't. I just noticed that arguments you believe are central are very stretchy, and can 'prove' anything, including conspiracy theories.
> Rationality isn't some sort of absolute parameter, it's determined wrt available information
The available information is very clear that cellphone towers are not mind control and that the current leaders of the tech world do not have the best interests of people in mind.
We don't need to talk about a particular DC, because that's beside the point: people have very legitimate reasons to oppose them on principle.
The difference being that AI companies are destroying all sorts of stuff, and cellphone companies didn't - they just provided cellphones.
Society did decay because of cellphones but it wasn't anything to do with the cellphone companies. The towers always were exactly what the cellphone companies said they were.
"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
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.
Big Tech founders have claimed that the public "trusts" them because the public uses ("chooses") their software. But does this amount to "real world" trust
> It's not reflexive; it's evidenced. Regardless of what big tech promises, or potential mitigations, everyone knows what tech companies do now. It's not a generalised small-town lack of trust in big city folks, it's a direct response to decades of extractive behaviour by the same companies and people.
I feel like this is projection. If you look at the list of top brands ranked by a variety of dimensions (trust, innovativeness, brand value, etc.) over the past multiple years, Big Tech companies regularly rank amongst the top 100.
The HN population, being mostly in the tech industry, is aware of all the shenanigans these companies pull and that has colored our views. But the rest of the general population... not so much. I mean, even Meta properties still rank highly despite all the things we know Meta has been doing pretty much since inception.
I have a property in NW Wisconsin. It's incredibly poor there - it seems like most people working age are on disability - the new form of welfare. Money is earned mostly in summer and hunting seasons. It's pretty depressing. Lots of alcohol problems. I hired someone to clear some trees and make lumber out of them once and he showed up for the job three months later. At least he showed up though. Weirdest thing - he never came back after the job to get paid. I end up often hiring contractors from 90 miles away to get good ones.
But a data center wouldn't help. It would raise electric prices and doesn't really employ people.
It's kind of like one industry that is in the area - there's a company that grows huge amounts of cranberries but its mostly automated. As far as I know only three people work on this huge site. They let the cranberries grow, flood the area when they're ready. The cranberries float to the top for robots to skim the surface and harvest them. The humans just move things around for the robots.
Which would be a good argument if the datacenters actually paid any taxes. They shop around for tens to hundreds of millions in tax breaks from officials who believe the lies like "we'll create thousands of jobs!".
TFA cites "Each project requires thousands of skilled workers during the two to six year construction period (nearly 10,000 in Mount Pleasant)" so maybe it's not totally fiction (at least during build time).
To me that's not sustainable. It just brings in outside workers, distorts the economy in bad way for locals through increased costs, distorts their daily life in a bad way and then it all goes away leaving a void in its wake. Like the olympics.
The Olympics are seen as a net negative for local economies though because it requires tons of local investment for a temporary payoff so the juice (billions of dollars of infra) isn’t worth the squeeze (a few weeks of high utilization followed by a glut).
For data centers you get a medium term boost to the economy + long term tax revenue. The externalities of data centers are quite low if you don’t put them right in someone’s neighborhood.
My sister dates a guy who works on these kinds of projects. He’s based out of Chicago, and goes to remote places like Idaho or Ohio to build them. They put him up in cheap temporary housing, I guess that generates some local money, but he’s very quickly moving on to the next job. They’re not hiring locals for these tasks, they don’t have the skills. The people who are benefitting are mostly local landlords.
If comrade1234 has to get contractors from 90 miles away just to clear some trees, there is no way they are going to hire locals to build a data center.
City taxes don't fix a broken economic flywheel. State taxes go to others and also don't fix it. You need a functional economy with jobs, income, spending and all that jazz. A small amount of taxes with no second order benefits is worth relatively little.
Sure but progress over perfection right? More tax revenue puts you in a better spot to attack those problems than not having it.
Even just doing what Northern Virginia does and lowering people’s property taxes gives homeowners more disposable income/ lowers prices for renters which is a start.
A school and hospital would do that more than a data center tho. Look at Merced California, used to be a nowhere destination. They built a UC there and now it’s a place students, PhDs and MDs from around the world want to move to. If UC Merced were a data center it would attract no one, it would drain and pollute the lake, and Merced CA would still be a nowhere destination.
We’re talking about rural Wisconsin - there is no world where you need to make a trade off between having school and a data center. Put a school in one field and a data center in a field further away. It just seems like you should tax the data center and then build a school or whatever else you think would help the local economy.
A data center turns the whole town into an industrial zone because of the sound and water pollution. No one wants to live near one, especially not doctors and teachers with young families who can choose to live anywhere.
Data centers don’t cause water pollution generally or turn entire towns into industrial zones. There is more than enough room in rural WI towns for industrial and non industrial parts.
> No one wants to live near one, especially not doctors and teachers with young families who can choose to live anywhere.
Northern Virginia is one of the top locations for the kind of people who “can live anywhere” and is the world capital of data centers. And part of that appeal in NoVA is low property taxes due to data centers paying taxes.
There is some real aspects of the data center debate but I don’t think your engaging with them
I mean, how do you explain the backlash then if their byproducts don't generally bother people?
> Northern Virginia is one of the top locations for the kind of people who “can live anywhere” and is the world capital of data centers.
People live in NoVa despite data centers, not because of them. Its proximity to DC makes it intrinsically attractive. Towns in rural nowhere don't have the same innate draw and I don't see how datacenters provide it.
> I mean, how do you explain the backlash then if their byproducts don't generally bother people?
I think the general populace has pretty irrational political stances. For example in NYC where I live "gentrification is bad because it will raise the rent" is a fairly common stance, despite the cause of high rent being restricted housing supply. There's a popular case of residents being OK with a truck stop but blocking any new housing [1].
Congestion pricing was incredibly unpopular and controversial, despite most New Yorkers not being drivers and the policy being very effective in many other cities. Now it's extremely popular.
There is also just a lot misinformation that goes around, the water aspect being one of them. Data center use something like 1/8th the water of the California Almond industry [2]. There is some limited indications anti data center sentiment is spread by US adversaries [3].
What do you call it when they install 100s of generators outside the building to provide power, create an amazing amount of noise, and a fair bit of pollution, while they claim they are temporary and turn them off 1 day out of 365?
Not to mention consuming quite a bit of water to provide cheaper cooling, instead of using closed loop systems.
I found the below line to get particularly "hard":
> When I visited DC in February to start researching the brewing AI backlash, I found that the top two uniting issues were kids’ safety and data centers.1 These were very different concerns from those I hear in San Francisco—a city with no kids and no data centers
It's an elite project, being forced on us without having any choice. It is worsening inflation. It is increasing inequality. It is threatening careers. It has cheapened human creativity. Just look at how the elite of Wall Street, Silicon Valley and politics are coalescing to absurd lengths to fund and build these things. Why wouldn't you be suspicious...
Inflation and inequality are driven by the money printer far more than AI. The money printer is also driving AI, because there's far more supply of money than sensible investments to put it in.
As a thought experiment why not just move the people who want them to those neighbourhoods and move the people who don't where the people who do live. I wonder how many would actually take that deal..
> "The EMF reader is shakier, going haywire under the crackling power lines, then settling down a few steps away"
That kind of statement really bothers me. Is it measuring the magnetic fields or RF emissions? If it's RF, what frequency? If the EMF reader is picking up radio waves, I'm not exactly concerned. Visible light would be weird. X-rays would be very concerning. Is it just picking up the 50/60Hz power line? That's all around you in your house anyway. If you just don't like power lines, say that
A good portion of this movement is irrational and driven by viral media. Last week a coworker was talking about how unbearably loud data centers are. I asked them if our parking lot is loud. (There’s a decent sized server floor in our building and a bunch of cooling equipment in the parking lot.) They had never noticed the cooling system.
On the other hand, my city gave the local data centers big tax breaks to come here. In the last couple years my property taxes have increased significantly along with my electricity bill. It seems obvious that I’m subsidizing the local data center. There’s probably a couple dozen people who work there, so it’s not a realistic employment opportunity for me or anyone I know. I’m not anti-tech at all, but I wish the city hadn’t made the deal they did. Perhaps big tech could be less parasitic and contribute beneficially to society?
There's a big psychological difference between the noise level in a transitory space like an office parking lot and the same noise level at a suburban home. Nobody wants their backyard, deck, or bedroom to sound like Eraserhead, even if it's subtle. (And some of the gas turbine ones are not subtle.)
Common citizens aren't the only ones who prefer not to live near these unsightly noise-and-pollution centers. Look at the satellite views around tech oligarchs' homes, and you won't see any data centers anywhere near those lavish estates. Let them build it in their own backyard.
rimbo789 | 10 hours ago
gandhiandy69 | 9 hours ago
mirzap | 9 hours ago
Kwantuum | 9 hours ago
And people opposing data centers today who are opposing unfettered data center creations will not look any *more* foolish than those who opposed the things you cite.
mirzap | 8 hours ago
inigyou | 8 hours ago
Nuclear plants are being forced to shut down in this heat wave, due to low river levels, as they don't have enough head pressure to run their cooling pumps and if they had different pumps their waste heat would sterilize the river. I'm sure China has no qualms about sterilising rivers but the next, hotter, heat wave will dry them up anyway, and they'll still have to turn the plants off.
mirzap | 8 hours ago
https://www.wired.com/2012/01/0104edison-uses-ac-to-kill-ele...
inigyou | 6 hours ago
inigyou | 9 hours ago
mirzap | 8 hours ago
inigyou | 8 hours ago
blitzar | 9 hours ago
inigyou | 8 hours ago
blitzar | 7 hours ago
inigyou | 10 hours ago
(Remember, in a shovel rush, sell casting machines)
afavour | 10 hours ago
- AI is going to take your jobs
- We need to build our data centers for this job stealing tool
- We need to build so quickly that there’s no time to do accurate assessments of what this will do to water or power supplies
Turns out people don’t like that. Who could have guessed? Anyone not living in a bubble.
Delphiza | 9 hours ago
Rejection (or fear) of AI translating into rejection of the physical infrastructure that supports it is perfectly reasonable.
zkmon | 9 hours ago
decimalenough | 9 hours ago
A data center is a big grey box that sits there humming quietly, and that's it. They do require power and lots of it, but unlikely steam engines they'll happily use solar, nuclear or anything else.
StilesCrisis | 9 hours ago
mapontosevenths | 9 hours ago
It was very loud inside, but you couldn't hear it from outside unless the power failed and the generators came on.
inigyou | 9 hours ago
mapontosevenths | 9 hours ago
Thats what anti-AI activists say. A decibel meter is about $20. For some reason the people in those videos never have one.
inigyou | 9 hours ago
mapontosevenths | 9 hours ago
For perspective, the inside of your home is probably about 40. When I turn on my box fan it's about 55.
That said they can be loud when the generators are running. It's possible that when the grid can't keep up the volume goes up, but thats not meant to be a long term state.
StilesCrisis | 8 hours ago
StilesCrisis | 8 hours ago
In this case it's a constant 60dB metallic whine. I would be livid if they built this near my home.
inemesitaffia | 8 hours ago
inigyou | 6 hours ago
skywhopper | 9 hours ago
mapontosevenths | 8 hours ago
Force them to either install mufflers and proper exhausts on their generators or build their own power infrastructure. They don't now because nobody makes them and it would cost money.
inigyou | 6 hours ago
mapontosevenths | 4 hours ago
It's like when California "destroyed the entire economy" by raising minimum wage. All the jobs are still there, prices are mostly the same. The only thing that moved were the goal posts.
folkrav | 9 hours ago
pama | 9 hours ago
ofrzeta | 9 hours ago
EDIT: recently I read about (I guess on HN) a new planned Amazon datacenter that was super environment-friendly. So in fact it might eventually be possible to create silent DCs but we'll see how this turns out.
dqv | 9 hours ago
pama | 9 hours ago
ungreased0675 | 9 hours ago
inigyou | 9 hours ago
jappgar | 9 hours ago
wizzwizz4 | 9 hours ago
sevenzero | 9 hours ago
epolanski | 9 hours ago
deadbunny | 9 hours ago
https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/communities-are-raising-n...
user43928 | 9 hours ago
I am interested to learn where the 96db comes from.
I see only vague claims about up to 96db inside of a server rack, but could not locate a concrete measurement or method used to determine this number.
mapontosevenths | 9 hours ago
A decibel meter is about $20 on Amazon, often cheaper. I dont know what their agenda is, but they've got one.
ptero | 9 hours ago
As much as I doubt that spreading of the data centers is a good thing, noise is not the weapon to wield. Unless we are talking the center of a quaint town. And possibly not even then.
Cthulhu_ | 9 hours ago
skywhopper | 9 hours ago
StilesCrisis | 9 hours ago
dataengineer56 | 9 hours ago
So you're saying the UK should never have built a railway system? It sounds like tech is right.
inigyou | 6 hours ago
gyanchawdhary | 9 hours ago
inigyou | 9 hours ago
gyanchawdhary | 6 hours ago
epolanski | 9 hours ago
There's now a gargantuan amount of documentation about their impact: - insane noise levels 24/7, you can hear them even at miles away - virtually no jobs brought to the place, besides some construction work early on - massive drain of local resources - massive eye sore
Like, I'm not against data centers per se, but you tell me they building one few miles from my house, I'm listing it the day I hear it and escaping as far as I can.
ptero | 8 hours ago
Can you share a link or two to this? Hearing a data center from miles away sounds suspicious.
solenoid0937 | 9 hours ago
JFC I wish people on HN would read a history book.
inigyou | 9 hours ago
Trains still do that today. They cut a locality in half with only certain crossing points being allowed. But at least enough people ride the train they can feel it's worthwhile.
bob001 | 9 hours ago
I tend to like not fearing starvation every year, not fearing freezing to death every year and not having the vast majority of my kids die. Industrialization led to all that.
inigyou | 9 hours ago
bob001 | 9 hours ago
inigyou | 9 hours ago
YackerLose | 9 hours ago
bob001 | 9 hours ago
Planktonne | 9 hours ago
> My conversations make me wonder if the technical content of data center deals is mostly beside the point. 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.
It's not reflexive; it's evidenced. Regardless of what big tech promises, or potential mitigations, everyone knows what tech companies do now. It's not a generalised small-town lack of trust in big city folks, it's a direct response to decades of extractive behaviour by the same companies and people.
Essentially, I think there's a proximal reputational problem for AI companies, which the article calls out, but the ultimate problem is factual. It's not an education/communication/negotiation issue, because the real problem is the underlying reality. The wolf at the door being distrusted is because it's a wolf, not PR.
elliotpage | 9 hours ago
These people, these communities, have been promised these same things before (or things adjacent to them) and have seen them not deliver, or even make their situation worse.
This is especially true of the tax income and job generation elements. The estimates provided as part of the deal are utterly divorced from reality- people know it and refuse to take part in the kayfabe that surrounds it.
YackerLose | 9 hours ago
inigyou | 6 hours ago
blitzar | 4 hours ago
ajkjk | 9 hours ago
Well of course it's because the companies think they don't have to give a good deal. That they can get away with it.
One wonders if at this point they would have saved money not trying to fuck people over to get what they wanted. I hope so. The ideal world has companies doing things the honest way because it's honest, but I'd settle for them doing it that way because they're economically incentivized to do so.
ajkjk | 9 hours ago
inigyou | 6 hours ago
ajkjk | 3 hours ago
As it happens they are competing on service quality and goodwill more than price (all will drop the price quite a bit if you ask because it's well over their costs and, bless, they are actually competing on price for once). I know that fiber's service is technically good but I resent Google enough that I will not give them money, all else being equal. Of course if I end up resenting the other providers more, maybe I would.
broken-kebab | 8 hours ago
Planktonne | 8 hours ago
The problem with conspiracy theories is not that they're based on a lack of trust, but that they're not rational. Sometimes a lack of trust is perfectly rational.
Cell towers don't actually fry your brains. Steam powered trains don't move so fast you suffocate. However, the big tech CEOs are absolutely going to take your data and use it against you. They are going to build data centers that harm your community. The fear here is reasonable and evidenced.
This isn't unique to AI, but AI is the current iteration of the same problem. Sometimes people distrust outsiders because they're star-bellied sneetches, but sometimes they distrust them because they're the British empire. You can't treat all distrust as unreasoning.
broken-kebab | 7 hours ago
Rationality isn't some sort of absolute parameter, it's determined wrt available information. And with information coming from outside it's certainly an issue of trust.
FWIW such unconditional claim as "DC will harm your community" is a shiny example of this, as you don't even care to talk about a particular DC, and obviously cases (community problems, and interests, and the way a DC placed or build) can vary a lot. Apparently, you just don't believe them at all, don't you?
>You can't treat all distrust as unreasoning.
I don't. I just noticed that arguments you believe are central are very stretchy, and can 'prove' anything, including conspiracy theories.
Planktonne | an hour ago
The available information is very clear that cellphone towers are not mind control and that the current leaders of the tech world do not have the best interests of people in mind.
We don't need to talk about a particular DC, because that's beside the point: people have very legitimate reasons to oppose them on principle.
inigyou | 6 hours ago
Society did decay because of cellphones but it wasn't anything to do with the cellphone companies. The towers always were exactly what the cellphone companies said they were.
1vuio0pswjnm7 | 6 hours ago
HN commenters favouring data centers never seem to address this either. It appears they just don't get it
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.
Big Tech founders have claimed that the public "trusts" them because the public uses ("chooses") their software. But does this amount to "real world" trust
keeda | 52 minutes ago
I feel like this is projection. If you look at the list of top brands ranked by a variety of dimensions (trust, innovativeness, brand value, etc.) over the past multiple years, Big Tech companies regularly rank amongst the top 100.
The HN population, being mostly in the tech industry, is aware of all the shenanigans these companies pull and that has colored our views. But the rest of the general population... not so much. I mean, even Meta properties still rank highly despite all the things we know Meta has been doing pretty much since inception.
comrade1234 | 9 hours ago
But a data center wouldn't help. It would raise electric prices and doesn't really employ people.
It's kind of like one industry that is in the area - there's a company that grows huge amounts of cranberries but its mostly automated. As far as I know only three people work on this huge site. They let the cranberries grow, flood the area when they're ready. The cranberries float to the top for robots to skim the surface and harvest them. The humans just move things around for the robots.
ianm218 | 9 hours ago
tyromaniac | 9 hours ago
https://buildermuse.com/economy/every-state-offering-data-ce...
deadbunny | 9 hours ago
ofrzeta | 9 hours ago
bob001 | 9 hours ago
ianm218 | 2 hours ago
For data centers you get a medium term boost to the economy + long term tax revenue. The externalities of data centers are quite low if you don’t put them right in someone’s neighborhood.
ModernMech | 9 hours ago
pibaker | 27 minutes ago
actionfromafar | 9 hours ago
bob001 | 9 hours ago
ianm218 | 5 hours ago
Even just doing what Northern Virginia does and lowering people’s property taxes gives homeowners more disposable income/ lowers prices for renters which is a start.
mapontosevenths | 9 hours ago
blitzar | 9 hours ago
if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle
ianm218 | 5 hours ago
Some data centers are paying lots of taxes and upgrading local grids, others are bribing local politicians or lobbying for abatements.
That is a much more substantive discussion than blanket anti growth.
ModernMech | 9 hours ago
ianm218 | 9 hours ago
ModernMech | 9 hours ago
inemesitaffia | 8 hours ago
ianm218 | 5 hours ago
> No one wants to live near one, especially not doctors and teachers with young families who can choose to live anywhere.
Northern Virginia is one of the top locations for the kind of people who “can live anywhere” and is the world capital of data centers. And part of that appeal in NoVA is low property taxes due to data centers paying taxes.
There is some real aspects of the data center debate but I don’t think your engaging with them
ModernMech | 5 hours ago
> Northern Virginia is one of the top locations for the kind of people who “can live anywhere” and is the world capital of data centers.
People live in NoVa despite data centers, not because of them. Its proximity to DC makes it intrinsically attractive. Towns in rural nowhere don't have the same innate draw and I don't see how datacenters provide it.
ianm218 | 3 hours ago
I think the general populace has pretty irrational political stances. For example in NYC where I live "gentrification is bad because it will raise the rent" is a fairly common stance, despite the cause of high rent being restricted housing supply. There's a popular case of residents being OK with a truck stop but blocking any new housing [1].
Congestion pricing was incredibly unpopular and controversial, despite most New Yorkers not being drivers and the policy being very effective in many other cities. Now it's extremely popular.
There is also just a lot misinformation that goes around, the water aspect being one of them. Data center use something like 1/8th the water of the California Almond industry [2]. There is some limited indications anti data center sentiment is spread by US adversaries [3].
[1]. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/18/nyregion/harlem-truck-dep... [2]. https://tech.yahoo.com/science/articles/data-centers-less-wa... [3]. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/09/business/china-russia-ai-...
sliken | 26 minutes ago
Not to mention consuming quite a bit of water to provide cheaper cooling, instead of using closed loop systems.
ransom1538 | 9 hours ago
inigyou | 6 hours ago
skywhopper | 9 hours ago
Tade0 | 9 hours ago
I believe you've met a Mike Garage:
https://x.com/japan_nobunaga/status/2083940637921943803
They don't always accept payment.
alexpotato | 9 hours ago
> When I visited DC in February to start researching the brewing AI backlash, I found that the top two uniting issues were kids’ safety and data centers.1 These were very different concerns from those I hear in San Francisco—a city with no kids and no data centers
mapping365 | 9 hours ago
inigyou | 9 hours ago
blitzar | 9 hours ago
Avicebron | 9 hours ago
I suspect they wouldn't
voidUpdate | 9 hours ago
That kind of statement really bothers me. Is it measuring the magnetic fields or RF emissions? If it's RF, what frequency? If the EMF reader is picking up radio waves, I'm not exactly concerned. Visible light would be weird. X-rays would be very concerning. Is it just picking up the 50/60Hz power line? That's all around you in your house anyway. If you just don't like power lines, say that
inigyou | 6 hours ago
ungreased0675 | 9 hours ago
On the other hand, my city gave the local data centers big tax breaks to come here. In the last couple years my property taxes have increased significantly along with my electricity bill. It seems obvious that I’m subsidizing the local data center. There’s probably a couple dozen people who work there, so it’s not a realistic employment opportunity for me or anyone I know. I’m not anti-tech at all, but I wish the city hadn’t made the deal they did. Perhaps big tech could be less parasitic and contribute beneficially to society?
user43928 | 9 hours ago
As long as there is no corruption involved, I do not see what is wrong with big tech choosing a project site where the cost is minimal.
If there are many poor rural cities which compete for data center deals, this seems to me like an efficient free market.
If public opinion swings, will this not influence politicians, and force big tech to provide better benefits in these deals?
inigyou | 6 hours ago
blitzar | 4 hours ago
inigyou | 4 hours ago
Jordan-117 | 5 hours ago
DamnInteresting | 5 hours ago