Hyperscalers were banned in the Netherlands because compared to their impact they make no money for the country. No jobs, a pitiful amount of taxes yet an enormous need for power, land and water.
That's it. The government will bend backwards to accommodate the port of Rotterdam, Schiphol or ASML because those are national assets. But for AI the math simply ain't mathing.
Sounds smart. There is literally no reasons to rush into AI data centers, it’s pure FOMO. Let the early companies explore the space and the technology mature. If it is here to stay it will still be valuable and you can join the industry.
Being first in something with such a massive cost, with dubious ROI, no good understanding of the hardware lifespan is a very risky bet. It’s completely possible the early players will end up with hardware and infrastructure they have to throw away/upgrade at cost in a few years, just because things are moving so quickly.
It’s fine to have some strategic investment in the grid, infra, and datacenters. But AI DCs in general should be seen as a risky bet
My hypothesis: people are against data centers because they are a visible externality.
Computers are in the cloud -- so, nowhere and cost nothing. The AI-assisted search result is on a web page and only costs a little bit of screen space. Amazon may have eaten retail, but at least it ships stuff to my door, has a great selection, and employs people.
Data centers are big, noisy water guzzlers that don't do anything and don't employ enough people to matter. They don't answer questions. They don't write code for me. They don't recover my data if I lose it. If I want to take some computer-mediated action, I go to https://... not data-center://... so why do I need the damn thing uglying up my community?
To be clear, I am not saying that these are stupid or naive opinions or arguments. I'm just trying to point out the visibility aspect. There are cogent arguments why allowing a data center would be a net negative to a community even after you factor in the actual benefits it provides (which are often enjoyed by Other People Who Don't Live Here).
It is natural for us to want eg utility-style AI on tap and also not want the planet destruction that data centers bring. (Nor the brain destruction that AI brings.)
I am subsidizing data centers via my power bill, all so they can over clock them more than really necessary. I use 1 billion claude tokens a month and understand the usefulness of AI, but id wager over 80% of AI spend comes from unsolicited interactions like on google searches, or AI summaries on emails, shitty AI videos on instagram and facebook, endless garbage youtube reels they love shoving down my face...
That is the visible part that leads most people to being anti data center. The average Joe thinks "why is my community, water supply, and money going to this thing I dont want"
Good point! My argument was that the upside is invisible but the costs are visible. You're saying that the downside is visible and the costs are visible. Those hypotheses are in tension -- do people connect data centers to their upsides and downsides or not? -- but now I'm inclined to think that we're both right and it's a bit of both.
The title is accurate: it's "I think". There's no convincing argument or study about whether the backlash is about big tech, data centers or AI or not. Maybe I'm a bit tired but I didn't find any objective information in this post on the matter.
If we are sharing just opinions, I'll say that it's definitely a mix of things. And the anti AI sentiment (in part because of the environmental impacts) is very real.
The rapid growth of AI possibly also raised anti tech growth sentiment more generally: in a way, we are realizing that tech doesn't live in clouds but is very much tangible, and its externalities too. Tech has never been this concrete in a way. And in parallel people are more and more aware that big tech doesn't straigtforwardly design its software to serve the end user, so yes, there's also a negative sentiment because of this too.
I'm a little bit surprised to see someone taking such grand & absolute claims so seriously.
I guess I don't, generally.
Actually thinking about it, it's not that I treat them as unserious, it's more like I read it as something akin to hyperbole.
Anyway this isn't to say exploring this ("taking it serously") isn't worthwhile, just that I hadn't been prior.
As for the backlash itself, it seems safe to say it's motivated by a wide range of things.
Ultimately though, I do agree with the point in the title (i.e. it's about datacentres) but I think a lot of the other factors mentioned are significant, but I still wouldn't expect even a perfect (impossible) poll/study to find a neat, unifying reason for most of the backlash.
Of course it's about the datacentres: why would anybody want even a modest, ye olde time datacentre, let alone a neo cloud / AI one, in their neighbourhood?
You can call this nimbyism, which it is, but it's important to note the gulf of difference between a tech company's private profit facility and the sorts of projects where "nimby" typically is invoked.
Because this particular DC rollout is so massive and high profile, people have realised en masse that rejecting these things is something they can do. The anti-AI movement is absolutely a big part of this -- in terms of publicity, awareness, outreach -- but the various local peoples can (should, must) have their own reason for rejecting/protesting the projects.
Finally, given the dismal rate of promised capacity actually coming online -- which was apparent prior to and separately from "the backlash" -- I can't help but wonder if the widespread local resistance will end up as a scapegoat when questions start getting raised.
Such an elitist thing that people do trying to separate "ideology" from reality. That Joe the plumber hates how the data center built by big tech cut his home value in half, but he couldn't possibly develop an "ideological" hatred of big tech. It also colluded to censor and enshittify his favorite app (tiktok) and drive Grandma insane for going on a decade. But he couldn't possibly draw connections between those things. He's no public intellectual posting on X everyday, he's just a neighborhood guy.
Basically I think most people are on some level in opposition of something that is very expensive and produces little of what they think has any value. Frankly I find AI as it is of little value. And on other side the speculated investment insane in scale.
I don't find it unreasonable to think that the money to be spend on these data centres could be spend on something else. Thus opposing them really does make sense.
You are right. Most people are against scale and progress. I don’t think it’s about big tech. I don’t think it’s about data centers. I don’t think it’s about emissions or water. It’s about scale.
The scale of wealth imbalance, the scale of money in politics, the scale of grocer prices,
the scale of data collection and abuse of targeted price manipulation,
the scale of climate catastrophe,
the scale of electric bills, humming noises, draught conditions.
It’s about realizing the scales are uneven, and seeing a tangible incarnation of that being built. All those problems are starting to seem awfully close to home.
You can’t reach the trillionaire, but maybe you can keep it out of your back yard, so you protest the data center.
Data centers polute their air, use up their water, increase their energy cost and make an unbearable noise in their neighborhood. But sure, they are simply anti progress for no reason.
None of those things are inherently true. I know it’s happening with a few DCs in the US operated by scrupulous people, but it’s far from the normal.
Datacenters don’t need to use much water outside of normal office needs. They don’t need to increase energy costs. They don’t need to pollute or make any noise in normal conditions.
If they do any of those things in normal operations, it’s due to lacking regulations or the lack of enforcement of existing regulations.
Who gives a shit about the average SV sociopath's idea of "progress"? In this context, progress means mass surveillance, infinite AI slop flooding every single facet of our lives and replacing any human job that isn't some sort of C-suite, why on earth would people be championing this type of "progress"?
> lot of discussion on Twitter in the last few days [...] People from basically all political sides are interested in owning the data center backlash, and are all saying it’s being caused by what they’ve always been on about.
I dont think twitter represents all political sides. Twitter is its own echo chamber.
But also, not being on twitter, I have not seen "all political sides" being interested in "owning the backlash". I have seen claims that "backslash unifies the sides like nothing else" and literally "it gives me hope we can unite on at least one thing". Interestingly, the activists I listened to said "everyone has own reason to hate them, but they are unified in the goal" confirming it is mix of reasons. Trump voter protesting data center wont have the same motivations as progressive protesting data center.
Hyperscalers were banned in the Netherlands because compared to their impact they make no money for the country. No jobs, a pitiful amount of taxes yet an enormous need for power, land and water.
That's it. The government will bend backwards to accommodate the port of Rotterdam, Schiphol or ASML because those are national assets. But for AI the math simply ain't mathing.
Sounds smart. There is literally no reasons to rush into AI data centers, it’s pure FOMO. Let the early companies explore the space and the technology mature. If it is here to stay it will still be valuable and you can join the industry.
Being first in something with such a massive cost, with dubious ROI, no good understanding of the hardware lifespan is a very risky bet. It’s completely possible the early players will end up with hardware and infrastructure they have to throw away/upgrade at cost in a few years, just because things are moving so quickly.
It’s fine to have some strategic investment in the grid, infra, and datacenters. But AI DCs in general should be seen as a risky bet
My hypothesis: people are against data centers because they are a visible externality.
Computers are in the cloud -- so, nowhere and cost nothing. The AI-assisted search result is on a web page and only costs a little bit of screen space. Amazon may have eaten retail, but at least it ships stuff to my door, has a great selection, and employs people.
Data centers are big, noisy water guzzlers that don't do anything and don't employ enough people to matter. They don't answer questions. They don't write code for me. They don't recover my data if I lose it. If I want to take some computer-mediated action, I go to https://... not data-center://... so why do I need the damn thing uglying up my community?
To be clear, I am not saying that these are stupid or naive opinions or arguments. I'm just trying to point out the visibility aspect. There are cogent arguments why allowing a data center would be a net negative to a community even after you factor in the actual benefits it provides (which are often enjoyed by Other People Who Don't Live Here).
It is natural for us to want eg utility-style AI on tap and also not want the planet destruction that data centers bring. (Nor the brain destruction that AI brings.)
I am subsidizing data centers via my power bill, all so they can over clock them more than really necessary. I use 1 billion claude tokens a month and understand the usefulness of AI, but id wager over 80% of AI spend comes from unsolicited interactions like on google searches, or AI summaries on emails, shitty AI videos on instagram and facebook, endless garbage youtube reels they love shoving down my face...
That is the visible part that leads most people to being anti data center. The average Joe thinks "why is my community, water supply, and money going to this thing I dont want"
Good point! My argument was that the upside is invisible but the costs are visible. You're saying that the downside is visible and the costs are visible. Those hypotheses are in tension -- do people connect data centers to their upsides and downsides or not? -- but now I'm inclined to think that we're both right and it's a bit of both.
The title is accurate: it's "I think". There's no convincing argument or study about whether the backlash is about big tech, data centers or AI or not. Maybe I'm a bit tired but I didn't find any objective information in this post on the matter.
If we are sharing just opinions, I'll say that it's definitely a mix of things. And the anti AI sentiment (in part because of the environmental impacts) is very real.
The rapid growth of AI possibly also raised anti tech growth sentiment more generally: in a way, we are realizing that tech doesn't live in clouds but is very much tangible, and its externalities too. Tech has never been this concrete in a way. And in parallel people are more and more aware that big tech doesn't straigtforwardly design its software to serve the end user, so yes, there's also a negative sentiment because of this too.
- stop whitewashing climate impacts
- https://read.misalignedmag.com/triangulating-ais-climate-imp...
I'm a little bit surprised to see someone taking such grand & absolute claims so seriously. I guess I don't, generally. Actually thinking about it, it's not that I treat them as unserious, it's more like I read it as something akin to hyperbole. Anyway this isn't to say exploring this ("taking it serously") isn't worthwhile, just that I hadn't been prior.
As for the backlash itself, it seems safe to say it's motivated by a wide range of things. Ultimately though, I do agree with the point in the title (i.e. it's about datacentres) but I think a lot of the other factors mentioned are significant, but I still wouldn't expect even a perfect (impossible) poll/study to find a neat, unifying reason for most of the backlash.
Of course it's about the datacentres: why would anybody want even a modest, ye olde time datacentre, let alone a neo cloud / AI one, in their neighbourhood? You can call this nimbyism, which it is, but it's important to note the gulf of difference between a tech company's private profit facility and the sorts of projects where "nimby" typically is invoked.
Because this particular DC rollout is so massive and high profile, people have realised en masse that rejecting these things is something they can do. The anti-AI movement is absolutely a big part of this -- in terms of publicity, awareness, outreach -- but the various local peoples can (should, must) have their own reason for rejecting/protesting the projects.
Finally, given the dismal rate of promised capacity actually coming online -- which was apparent prior to and separately from "the backlash" -- I can't help but wonder if the widespread local resistance will end up as a scapegoat when questions start getting raised.
Such an elitist thing that people do trying to separate "ideology" from reality. That Joe the plumber hates how the data center built by big tech cut his home value in half, but he couldn't possibly develop an "ideological" hatred of big tech. It also colluded to censor and enshittify his favorite app (tiktok) and drive Grandma insane for going on a decade. But he couldn't possibly draw connections between those things. He's no public intellectual posting on X everyday, he's just a neighborhood guy.
Basically I think most people are on some level in opposition of something that is very expensive and produces little of what they think has any value. Frankly I find AI as it is of little value. And on other side the speculated investment insane in scale.
I don't find it unreasonable to think that the money to be spend on these data centres could be spend on something else. Thus opposing them really does make sense.
> in opposition of something that is very expensive
And harmful
I'm not a fan of any large projects from Amazon, including data centers, warehouses, and the HQ2 office.
Okay. But there isn’t anywhere near the sort of backlash against those other things as there is against AI data centers.
AI data centers are much larger, much more visible, much more power hungry, consume more water and noisier.
Its just not the same thing.
You are right. Most people are against scale and progress. I don’t think it’s about big tech. I don’t think it’s about data centers. I don’t think it’s about emissions or water. It’s about scale.
The scale of wealth imbalance, the scale of money in politics, the scale of grocer prices, the scale of data collection and abuse of targeted price manipulation, the scale of climate catastrophe, the scale of electric bills, humming noises, draught conditions. It’s about realizing the scales are uneven, and seeing a tangible incarnation of that being built. All those problems are starting to seem awfully close to home. You can’t reach the trillionaire, but maybe you can keep it out of your back yard, so you protest the data center.
That's a weird way to reason about it.
Data centers polute their air, use up their water, increase their energy cost and make an unbearable noise in their neighborhood. But sure, they are simply anti progress for no reason.
None of those things are inherently true. I know it’s happening with a few DCs in the US operated by scrupulous people, but it’s far from the normal.
Datacenters don’t need to use much water outside of normal office needs. They don’t need to increase energy costs. They don’t need to pollute or make any noise in normal conditions.
If they do any of those things in normal operations, it’s due to lacking regulations or the lack of enforcement of existing regulations.
Do you think people would still oppose it if hypothetically data centres didn't use that much water? hint: this is not a hypothetical
It's not only about the water, so there is no need to fixate on it.
They are not against "progress" in a vacuum.
Who gives a shit about the average SV sociopath's idea of "progress"? In this context, progress means mass surveillance, infinite AI slop flooding every single facet of our lives and replacing any human job that isn't some sort of C-suite, why on earth would people be championing this type of "progress"?
I think it's mainly people being tired of and pissed off by the oligarchs
it was about the data centers, now it's about the guillotines.
Things are getting literal… https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49442998
> lot of discussion on Twitter in the last few days [...] People from basically all political sides are interested in owning the data center backlash, and are all saying it’s being caused by what they’ve always been on about.
I dont think twitter represents all political sides. Twitter is its own echo chamber.
But also, not being on twitter, I have not seen "all political sides" being interested in "owning the backlash". I have seen claims that "backslash unifies the sides like nothing else" and literally "it gives me hope we can unite on at least one thing". Interestingly, the activists I listened to said "everyone has own reason to hate them, but they are unified in the goal" confirming it is mix of reasons. Trump voter protesting data center wont have the same motivations as progressive protesting data center.