CEO admits they have made a solution in search for a problem
post
Calling it a multi billion dollar project is factually correct but quite the understatement
The only useful thing to do with AI is to remove it from any place they did infect it with.
Bananapants is now my new favorite word.
Can't even imagine how bleak it must look Co-Pilot and Microsoft when all the news/talk is always about ChatGPT and Grok
Buddy, the useful thing you want do with it is also socially impermissible.
Its better to beg for social forgiveness than to ask for social permission
Are those quotes actually real and in the right context?
Motherfuckers have been buying people out of their homes, emptying entire neighborhoods just to get access to land near power plants and near water sources to build their AI data centers, they've been polluting drinking water sources and siphoning the electricity of entire towns, and polluting like crazy, and they're affraid society might not accept their useless AI porn generating bullshit? Because let's face it, that's what it's mostly used for.
Where did they buy neighborhoods to bulldoze them?
Here's one example:
There's also Itasca in Illinois
I bet you can find more
Wow wow wow crazy.
They reportedly paid an average of around $950,000 per house — which was significantly above what that land would have been worth as residential
Why are you trying to make it seem like the homeowners have been screwed over? It makes no fucking sense.
There is a reason they all sold. But that it is happening is still crazy. As if there is no empty space anywhere?
It doesn't matter. They didn't hold a gun to anyone's head. It's hard to imagine anyone being dumb enough to not realizer what a gift that is.
What's crazy is people acting like this is some kind conspiracy that screwed over the homeowners, who made out like bandits.
I'm surprised we don't have a story yet about a town of people weilding pitchforks and torches and breaking into a data center.
They're being paid above market value for their homes. And who knows what other kinds of pressure they're facing.
Would you pissed if someone offered you double the value of your home? Wish would that happen to me.
Motherfuckers have been buying people out of their homes
You know those people to choose to sell their property, right?
How are they polluting?
They are wrecking the energy grid and messing with the water supply, but how are they polluting the water supply?
Here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8gy7lv448o
Also there are talks of re-opening old coal electric power plants to feed these data centers.
And I agree that coal power plants are very polluting. However, the pollution comes from the source of power.
The profitability of a power plant is to some degree determined by its location. It costs more to move power farther. As renewables get cheaper, fossil fuel plant margins get lower, and in many cases, it's enough to shut them down.
Now you can't move a coal plant closer to the people who use electricity, but if you build a data center close to a coal plant, suddenly, it's a viable business model.
Similar reason aluminum refineries are often built near power plants. Except aluminum actually helps people.
I'm more focusing on what the source of pollution is to make sure arguments are better made online to fight data centers.
The power required for data centers can be polluting, but building a data center in an area isn't guaranteed to cause a drop in air quality since the builder could choose a different energy source to power the data center.
Except you’re missing the reality of the situation for the sake of theory. They pointed out quite rightly that these new data centres are not using clean energy and are, in fact, propping up old fossil-fuel plants which should be closing to make way for clean energy.
They could choose a lot of stuff, but since it’s a choice and not forced upon them they are jumping on the quicker options. Why wait for a bunch of renewable sources to be built when you could simply use the existing, shitty stuff and get your shit built quicker? Corporations don’t give a fuck about anything but money and they will let people fucking die if it would save them even 0.01% of their annual revenue. It wouldn’t the first or even the thousandth time it’s happened.
Corporations also misinterpret facts for their benefit.
I can easily see people make the argument that data centers affect air quality because they are powered by coal power plants and the data center rep is going to reply "we aren't building a coal power plant at this data center site; that's just opposition fear mongering" and now it becomes harder to get people to believe you on other issues.
Ok but that’s pretty much what you’re saying. The plants are linked to increases in pollution and you’re like “well just because they always are and no one is stopping them doesn’t mean they need to be!”
It is more addressing what is happening on site versus part of a regional problem.
You're likely to get more people to show up to a zoning board meeting by saying that this data center is going to increase air pollution. Then the data center rep is going to ensure that no or a small power plant able to act as a backup is going to be used. Everyone will be happy, but the data center still gets built because the pollution isn't happening on site.
To second /u/Soup. Look at the average bitcoin mine in China. They're largely coal powered.
However, the pollution comes from the source of power.
Unless the AI is running on fairy dust, its energy use is very much a part of how sustainable it is.
It is important to anticipate the argument that they are getting the power from renewable sources.
But they aren’t. What they could be doing is irrelevant, none of the big ones are running 100% (or probably even 50%) green energy.
This is anticipating the arguments in front of the planning boards.
I get that a lot of data centers use coal and other polluting sources of power. The problem is how that gets represented when trying to create local opposition.
This is anticipating the arguments in front of the planning boards
Nope, it's a poor attempt at playing Devil's advocate.
Your starting point of assuming that your audience doesn't know that extreme power consumption inevitably leads to increased pollution is condescending at best.
Especially in a country where the federal government has made renewable energy all but illegal while promoting fossil fuels at every opportunity.
Granted, that country is also the world's number one importer, exporter, producer, and sponsor of disinformation, but STILL..
https://www.sehn.org/sehn/2025/8/14/data-centers-and-the-water-crisis
You know that using water turns it into wastewater right? Whether it's cooling computers or turning a turbine, the water is contaminated by metals as a direct result of the process.
You know that you can make a water cooled system where the water used to cool system doesn't touch the inner machinery, right?
It is more efficient to run an internal system that doesn't interface with the outside except through radiators. The radiators interface with the external water supply, usually causing the water to evaporate since it is a relatively cheap way to remove thermal energy from a system.
After all, if the water stayed liquid, they could find other ways to cool the water to be reused. The problem with data centers is that they are literally boiling away the local water supply.
You make a point; data centers are indeed boiling away fresh water reserves. But you're also asking what the direct source of pollution is, in order to more effectively argue against the data centers
Because these data centers require energy and cooling, while also working with "razor-thin margins" of AI competition... they are reinvigorating coal and fossil fuels, through use of an existent infrastructure
But also, nobody asked for them to dump billions into this... though dumping the same amount of effort and capital into renewable energy (as well as curbing climate disaster), isn't apparently as readily profitable
It's hard to directly blame "increased pollution" on data centers, because that would be silly to allow such linear blame to be seen, in all the grift. And could also decrease overall profitability if the general public made the connection
The pollution comes from their use of existing infrastructure, while doubly, they could be building renewable infrastructure. It's just not profitable in such a corporate world to do anything but scrape the remnants of a dying world
Edit: Don't forget to recycle!
I'm making sure that the argument is going to be understood by lay people.
It is relatively easy to get people to rally against building a coal power plant in their community. My concern is that people are going to say not to build a data center because it is going to be powered by coal and the data center rep is going to say that a coal power plant isn't going to be built on site.
That data center would still get built because there is going to be a performative meeting where planning officials ban building the power plant, but then a data center operator buys a coal power plant about to be decommissioned and decides to keep it going to fuel the data center without having to go through the planning hurdles of getting that plant built.
I'm just trying to make sure that the arguments make sense to people who aren't thinking through it as much as you.
Then don't focus on the pollution, but the fresh water reserves being depleted. Ya got sound thoughts, to me; I wouldn't try to complicate it (if I could help it)
Lay people lie where under scrutiny. Meet them somewheres in the middle, if you're so determined. We're uninformed, not incapable
Many residents' electricity bills are skyrocketing due to the predicted demand of data centers. It's not as hard to convince people to oppose building more if they know it's due to more data centers. The problem is convincing many that it's the reason the bills are so high and not blaming windmill or solar power. The last part isn't always easy.
That goes for the piping. But it's it true for the pumps? Are they using pumps that adhere to strict drinking water standards?
Wow, it turns out "Really convincing-sounding chatbot" isn't as all-purpose as was hoped.
I mean, legit, it's impressive how detailed and precise (and often wrong) it can get, but impressive isn't the same as useful.
I guess AI image generation probably has made concept art mockups quicker for some.
I tried to use it for help in Fallout 3 recently. I didn't want spoilers, so I didn't want to just use a walkthrough or wiki that often just tells you the answer and stuff you didn't want to be told. I thought it would be clever if the bot could tell me little clues to questions like, "Is the key I need even in this building?"
It made up such insane things! Like, "The NPC who carries the key is a ghoul mamed Chlamydia Jane. She's located at such and such."
Chlamydia. Jane.
Some robot had the key. He was in a small room I missed.
People who can't find any use for it are those who are determined to hate it at all costs.
Cooking and weight loss alone is worth $20 a month for me and that's just scratching the surface.
I'm not sure an AI nutritionist in every kitchen is worth burning the environment/economy down.
I am sure you're a hypocrite when it comes to energy expenditure. My footprint is probably smaller than yours.
Fuck me for improving in a way YOU don't approve, right?
My GPU just started to die and I planned to build/upgrade my PC. Rip I guess all I can do now is hope for the bubble to burst.
You can still get one that's 7 years old and was thrashed by the crypto Bros for 800 bucks though !
My RAM is starting to go on my 10 year old machine. I haven’t cried, but I wouldn’t describe the situation as dry, either.
I had the same thing yesterday - I had bought a 16GB DDR4 stick in the before times for my ThinkPad and now it's been behaving erratically and unpredictable. I'll run a memtest at some point, but it might be going back to its original 8GB for a long time..
DDR4 laptop RAM hasn't been hit quite as hard, a 16GB will set you back about $100-120
I had a squiz, so I had gotten a Samsung 2666MHz DDR4 16GB stick back in early October 2025 and it was AUD52.23
Looks like if I look around hard enough they're about AUD80-90 now, so while that's still a relatively large jump, it's not anything like the desktop memory has been.
I think even so, if my ThinkPad continues to have issues I'll live with the 8GB for now and wait out the price hike.
It’s wild to think that 'actually being useful' is considered a backup plan and not the starting point. Usually, you prove the value before you use all the resources, not the other way around.
It is useful, if you have the freedom to use it when and how you want. Not when Microsoft says so.
The epitome of a solution looking for a problem. Microsoft and others have dropped almost trillions into AI. With nothing to show for it.
It absolutely makes no sense that a bunch of corpos can do whatever the hell they like all while the common folk are forced to pay for their stupidity.
The electricity is one example. Bullshit like this which is completely useless shouldn't be a thing - All it does is severely impact the general populace all while the borguoise is blinded by false narratives whilst living beside their fat stacks of cash.
They've already lost social permission by making us hate their OS. This wording feels the same as calling lies "alternative facts." You just rename"hatred of our OS" with "lack of social permission." God PR speak is so annoying
Today in "billionaire says the most blatantly evil and deranged shit ever publicly and no one cares"…
Banana pants for scale.
I think there are valuable, narrow use cases for AI as it currently is. It should not be released into the wild willy-nilly in some scheme by greedy, irresponsible billionaires to profit from. It should be strictly regulated and controlled, perhaps allowed only to researchers who are trained to use it responsibly. I imagine it would be useful for suggesting novel solutions to problems that people would eventually come up with on their own, but LLMs would present many more now for consideration. It could act as a hallucinating muse for people who understand its limitations and know the application well enough to know what to reject out of hand as wrong and irresponsible.
I hereby revoke the social permission.
I see ai having 1 purpose
Help blind people
Image recognition is amazingly useful for blind people
It's also good at assisting with software development, no thanks to Microsoft though when it's Google's Gemini model and Anthropic's Opus model used by copilot
In a similar vein, machine learning is also being used to improve cochlear implants
They could produce something useful instead?!
Boycott companies trying tonpush for ai, let tjem lose more money for thinking they can spit in the face of the consumer, Now THAT is useful
The DotCom bubble burst in 2000 and lots of nonsensical companies went under. But it did not mean that the Internet was gone. It just mean that lots of people did stupid investments.
Microsoft committed too much too soon and now they're desperate.
It is the grift du jour, so it was at the time
Any city council not restricting data center builds or not expanding renewables isn't paying attention or has been bribed
I'm quite a fan of AI actually for only the small things. I mainly use it for stock price projections, looking for earnings report and prospecting for potential stocks to buy. I still verify the information of course. But I still want the AI bubble to pop because it is soooo overrated and I could bet on shorting the crash.

all 17 comments