all 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 47 points 1 month ago (13 children)

They can't spend that fucking money on making this shit in a way that's compliant instead?

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    Yeah, if data centers used solar power, batteries, and cooling that doesn’t waste water, I think communities wouldn’t mind (as much).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

    If I had fucking 280 billion and wanted to build the world's biggest data center right fucking now, you bet your ass I'd buy out the entire production chain of renewables infrastructure and get fucking even richer for the next 50 years as I use the stuff at the start to make the data center, then the rest to charge the local population for green energy, and to spend the rest of the supply chain after to sell more green energy production stuff.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    If you had 280 billion, you wouldn't give two hot shits about destroying the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    The synopsis is the title. Just watch it, his videos are presented concisely enough and worth your time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    Alright… I wasted a half an hour of my life, so no one else needs to. The maker of the video didn’t even bother with a description. 

    The title doesn’t say how they are doing this (what causes the effect and what the effect—if any—does to those affected by the “acoustic weapon”) nor who/what it effects: “Datacenters Behaving Like Acoustic Weapons - Benn Jordan”

    My synopsis for you: The thesis of the video is that data centers produce infrasound (low-frequency noise) that is harmful to people who live nearby. The video shows the noise being recorded to prove it is happening.

    I’m not at expert in this, so I can’t tell whether the level recorded has any effects for people living nearby as is claimed. I suppose if you need a reason to watch it, you could see for yourself if the argument and evidence seems convincing, or if you can find a flaw in it better than I can.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 1 month ago

    If they want data centers so damn bad we can be sure they will not be good for us.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    That's $1B+ that could have increased paychecks or benefits or bathroom breaks.

    Holy shit, why would anyone still work there after moves like that?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Amazon seems to be riding on the desperation of poor uneducated people. When you can choose between starving homelessness for you and your kids and working at amazon, your ideals tend to take a backseat. And Amazon works hard to break your spirit and perpetually keep you that desperate.

    I much more blame the people willingly using their services. Stop buying shit from amazon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    White house meeting ended up with a "morally binding" agreement to be more generous to communities/states considering data centers.

    Apparently, its cheaper to spend $1B on "toxic sludge is good for you" lies than it is to offer community benefits.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I think it's well past time we all stop treating oligarchs like they don't have something to gain by supporting each other. 1 billion from Amazon dissuading people from believing data centers are bad for the people around them = more money for health care companies when those people inevitably get sick. Those companies likely use AWS, which means some of that money gets funneled back into Amazon.

    I'm sure I'm simplifying how things will actually work but this doesn't seem entirely outside the realm of possibility. Not to mention that 1B Amazon is spending is, essentially, investing in a disinformation/ propaganda machine - which has benefits down the line. Not to the people, of course.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    toxic sludge is good for you

    This is perhaps obscure, but a reference to a famous PR book from the 1970s. Datacenter harm is mostly about electricity scarcity pricing for rest of US, noise and sometimes water use, and financial loss. There can be pollution/global warming associated concerns, but its not a major health care issue.

    stop treating oligarchs like they don’t have something to gain by supporting each other.

    This is indeed the core issue in America. Israel first rulership is part of the support circle, and much more so, since 2024.

    That $1B budget is unlikely to be TV advertisements for datacenters. It's likely to be bribes that get all of the pre-election candidate opposition to projects go quiet after election.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Anecdotal but I absolutely hear radio ads for a data center brand and the entirety of the ads are propaganda about how this particular brand of data center cares about the surrounding neighborhood. None of the ad is about how the data centers this company builds are used, just an ad talking about how they don't do the typical negative things associated with data centers.

    Propaganda.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    I laughed the other day when seeing a add in favor of datacenters.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    and that if the common folk don't get in line and support their development, the nation could be left in the dust.

    The oh so important race to higher computing numbers again? While not giving the infrastructure to scientific research?

  • source
  • 17 comments in c/technology@beehaw.org view that post
    [–] 25 points 1 month ago (12 children)

    It's hilarious they are like, "but golf courses are worse!"

    Yeah. Get rid of them too.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    Where's the protests over golf courses though? Why are you showing up to an Anti-AI protest, but not organizing one for golf courses?

    This is the biggest thing that's pissing me off about these anti-AI for environmental reasons folks. People are literally getting into giant SUVs to drive to anti-AI datacenter protests, then stopping off to get a steak to cook for dinner on the way home.

    The amount of fuel they just burned, and the amount of energy and pollution beef production generates for that steak are quite literally orders of magnitude worse for the environment than AI datacenters.

    Yet nobody is protesting combustion vehicles, or even oil and gas companies at this point, and very few people choose to not eat meat (and even a lot of those don't do it for environmental reasons).

    Rational people worried about the environment, pollution, or water usage would target the worst offenders. Yet here they are protesting in massive numbers for something that's less than well under 1% of global energy use.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    While you are absolutely correct, all those other industries are well established, ai and datacentres are relatively new to the scene. It's much easier to stop something that just started, then stop something that is already established.

    Additionally, protesting one doesn't make protesting the other impossible. Education is an effective tool to reach people. "Are you upset that datacentres waste x amount of water, well then oil and gas wastes 10x amount. Let's protest those as well."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    That is the most defeatist argument I think I've heard. You're essentially suggesting that it's too late to fix the biggest issues, so you're going to protest things that won't actually have an impact just because it's easier.

    You're right that people could be doing multiple, I'm just pointing out they aren't doing that.

    At this point it's clearly either just performative activism, or people are using the environment as an excuse to hide their worries about the economic impacts that may affect them (completely valid)

    The third option is that people are so poorly educated that they actually can't think rationally about this issue. I'm not ruling that out at this point.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

    You're looking for the populace as a whole to have some kind of sit-down, coordinated evaluation of what has maximal climate impact, but that's not how protest movements work.

    Small groups can be tactical like that. Large protest movements have to seize on whatever momentum happens, when it happens.

    If people were out there protesting golf courses, I'd be there too, and I'd be encouraging it, but I'm not going to waste my breath as someone with zero meaningful platform trying to foment a mass protest movement out of thin air.

    And there's something more important to this movement than just directly addressing the environmental impact of datacenters, which is the anti-large-corporation sentiment it's feeding (both from, and into). That is very important for climate action. And I'm not sure if you've been going to any (climate) protests, but there are definitely signs at all of them protesting oil and gas companies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    Irrational protests are not helpful. Doing something just because it's popular is called a fad.

    Anti-corporate sentiment and protests are hilarious, there's already an easy mechanism to punish companies. Don't buy their shit, or support other companies that buy their shit. However, that rarely works because "the public" doesn't actually care and just wants cheap shit.

    We could put oil companies out of business in a couple of years by simply changing our collective individual purchasing habits. That would require a sacrifice in lifestyle quality that most people aren't willing to provide though.

    I wonder how many people go to these ai-datacenter protests, then go home and ask chatgpt to help them write a birthday card joke for their friend/family member. I would bet large amounts of money that it's a sizeable percentage of vocal critics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    The bigger thing is just the whole virtue signaling of everything and anything. I try to do my best about all of this too, but I don’t protest, I don’t brag to my friends. I just kind of try to do good things (to the best of my abilities), and otherwise just shut the fuck up about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    The clothing industry is also orders of magnitude worse, and insanely wasteful. But no, it's only now people are suddenly up in arms about water consumption.

    I'm not with you on energy use, though. It's already over 5% in the US, and we don't even know how bad it is in data-center-dense Texas (which means it's bad), in a state with an already notoriously unreliable energy grid. Still is the case sometimes that politics is local.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    See this is part of the problem, people aren't paying attention to the words and spin that is being used to deceive you.

    It's not 5% of enegy use, the statistics you see for that number are for "electricity use" which is not the same.

    Electricity production/consumption only accounts for around 35% of global energy use (and not all of it comes from fossil fuels). Most global energy use is fossil fuels being burned directly in vehicles (trucks, mining, etc.) or industrial processes (fertilizer production, gas refineries, etc.)

    The US also hosts a very large percentage of the world's datacenters. That 5% number also includes All types of datacenters, not just AI which still make up a large portion of that number.

    So when you actually complete the math, the current AI enegy use is around 0.5% of global energy use.

    For comparison, meat production takes around 15% of global energy use.

    Feel free to double check the facts and math on this, it's all available publicly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Take Our Money and Shut Up

    Ftfy.

    I swear editors aren't even trying these days.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Isn't it a reference to that Futurama line? It still works.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    It is and it doesn't. The bit is Fry telling someone to stop selling him on something and giving them money blindly, which isn't what's happening in the article at all. Flipped, it's someone paying another to shut up, which fits perfectly and is something an editor should be able to figure out.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Jesus christ. Tax wealth! Holy hell our gov't is shit.

  • source
  • 5 comments in c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 20 points 1 month ago

    Billionaires think they can buy anything. What? They can? Dammit!

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago

    the nation could be left in the dust.

    wdym amazon, we already are. Have you seen the cost of living when compared to wages? Data centers won't help that.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    The fun part is that amazon is spending 250 billion/year on data centers, while this 1 billion "payout" to the communities is spread out over 5 years, so its actually 250 million/year, or almost exactly 0.1% or their datacenters spend.

    They are literally willing to spend 99.9% of their money fucking over communites, and think 0.1% is enough to get the pleebs to shut the fuck up about their lives being ruined.

    They are so greedy, they can't even snap off 1% of their greed to enable more greed.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 1 comment in c/technology@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    I am 100% against data centers.

    Money, please!

  • source