https://archive.ph/2026.11.05-224738/https://www.ft.com/content/32fd4450-5880-437d-9bd9-df13289ada24

The US midterm elections — in which voters elected anti-data centre governors in Texas, Georgia and Ohio and passed 38 local votes in favour of restrictions on their development — have forced the tech industry to reflect on its failure to connect with the public.

“The reason is not that people are Luddites . . . it’s much like the protests against the masks in Covid. It has become a political symbol,” said Vik Bajaj, co-chief executive of the Jeff Bezos-backed AI start-up Prometheus.

. . . “As a profession, we have spent two years pretty dangerously telling people that AI will change the future of work for the worse — that they will be out of jobs, that their children will be out of jobs, their grandchildren will live in a world that’s unrecognisable. And then for the last year or so, we’ve also been flirting with the idea that it’s an existential crisis.”

“I think this election was a big wake-up call . . . to take a pause and think about what’s happening and approach this in a way that’s maybe a little more thoughtful,” said John Hanke, founder of Niantic Spatial, the AI world model company and gaming group that made Pokémon Go. “It’s been go, go, go, build, build, build, and some of that has been . . . with head buried in sand.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 15 hours ago (7 children)

am i completely crazy or does the data center obsession only make sense if these companies are operating under the assumption that they'll be used for cyberwarfare?

like the economics fully do not make sense unless you assume you'll have a blank check for maximum utilization in the near future and the only money faucet big enough to meet that demand is in the defense budget. it explains the outright hostility to residents, the secrecy, and the maximalism of it all. but it doesn't seem to be part of the conversation. why?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

    I can see two potential explanations:

    1. Hubris on the part of the tech giants. We already know they’re hubristic, it’s possible that they thought they could actually make it intelligent. (This seems even more likely when you understand the “spiritual” beliefs of the people building the datacenters. The “T” in TESCREAL tells us a lot about how these dumbasses think).

    2. Surveillance apparatus of the state. Would the state want to do this? Yes, 100%. Can the state afford to use and maintain this? Absolutely not.

    So, I’m personally leaning towards Option 1 with a small side of option 2

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

    Point two often comes up, here and on Bluesky. Far as I can tell, there's more than enough compute as it stands today for any sort of surveillance tooling we can imagine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • The silicon valley mentality involves selling a product before it's useful and sometimes even before it exists. They believe that it will become profitable they just don't know how yet. But if it turns out not to be that profitable then they will try to pass the buck on to the public one way or another.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 12 hours ago

    I think it's simpler, and perhaps even more perverse.

    Lemmy often talks about AI as if it's a monolith, but these companies are in competition. No one wants left behind in not having enough compute to keep training and advancing their own models. Also, if they're not building, investors are going to get antsy, thinking that company isn't a serious competitor.

    They all know damned well this is a bubble, but they're banking on being the winner that crawls out the blast crater. They're deliberately fucking our economy on the gamble that they alone prevail.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 15 hours ago

    Hacking sort of depends on there being a bug in the targeted infrastructure, a so called exploit, which you can, well, exploit. If you don't have one, all you can do is brute force attacks, which are impractical, no matter how much you're willing to invest. You may want a high end llm looking for vulnerabilities, but the enemy probably doesn't have enough stuff to justify using more than a handful of those. And you'd want those computers running in underground bunkers, not in exposed data centers on the surface.

    The whole data center build out only serves to excite investors. It's a waste of resources in every other regard. A symptom of late-stage capitalism.

  • source
  • parent