I mean, the wastewater issues can be real in some environments. It's not a completely insane idea and like all things can be reasonably discussed and mitigated. It's not like these things have the ecological impact of steel foundries or fruit orchards, but they're not parks either.

I do think the tech industry would be wise to do more outreach and less sneering, though. Freakouts about AI (which ultimately is what this is) aren't "rational" but they're eminently "reasonable". This isn't like electrification or aviation or the internet or whatnot (technologies that had clear, tangible benefits that everyone could see and understand), there is real discussion happening, by real experts, about essentially all non-physical labor being replaced!

And... what do regular folks get from that? Talking to robots doesn't look like a quality of life improvement!

Basically we in the upper stands here are having a "Let Them Eat Cake" moment, and we should stop. Things are getting ugly.

▲

ronsor 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I do think the tech industry would be wise to do more outreach and less sneering, though. Freakouts about AI (which ultimately is what this is) aren't "rational" but they're eminently "reasonable".

A lot of the "sneering" I see from everyone who isn't an investor or an executive is a consequence of resistance to outreach. It's very difficult to discuss subjects with people when many now interpret factual explanations as propaganda and reassurance as manipulation.

By the way, plenty of people feared electricity a great deal (and it wasn't exactly implemented safely when it was new). In the 90s, many people also thought the Internet was a temporary fad, a mere novelty that would fade in some years.

▲

pesus 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Maybe the issue is the "reassurance" is identical to propaganda and manipulation. It definitely doesn't help that the companies having to "reassure" people have aligned themselves with so many others that have been pushing propaganda to manipulate others for some time now. Nor does it help that many of the same companies that need to "reassure" people are also actively doing the opposite - see the billboards bragging about not hiring humans, or CEOs bragging about how AI will replace the majority of people and leave them destitute.

There's no reason for someone to trust any "reassurance" when there are so many signals indicating they shouldn't.

	▲	ToValueFunfetti 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Reassurance is identical to propaganda and manipulation insofar as all attempt to convey beliefs. Reassurance, here, should be apparently different in that it conveys true information. In the history of mankind, it has never been easier to discern between true and false information. If people want to throw up their hands and start believing whatever feels right, they are permitted to do so. Though they have a duty not to as citizens of a democracy, they have the right to actively pursue policies based on falsehoods. Let's not pretend it's a reasonable or respectable reaction to seeing billboards. If somebody does want to give up on research and working out the truth, please actually give up and say you don't know. Stop coming to the city council meetings and plastering "millions of gallons" on even the social medias where that's surprising.
	▲	hunterpayne 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I think the marketing about not hiring humans is mostly what it is. There are also foreign entities actively spreading propaganda. But their claims are so wildly insane they get shot down pretty quickly. So it isn't just about messaging. It is about not being hated. If they hate you, the truth doesn't really matter.

▲

tptacek 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't see it that way at all, but then I'm a housing activist, and I've seen fiercer opposition to a 4-story apartment building than to some of these data centers. People just like opposing development. It's very satisfying!

When I see a protest over a golf course opening, I'll take data center water use concerns seriously.

The data centers the industry wants are all going to get built. People are being hypnotized by concentrated minority interests in specific spots in the country. The only big picture thing about it is the left-populist sideshow it's created.

▲

no-name-here 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The data centers the industry wants are all going to get built.

That seems very untrue - multiple areas have already banned data centers, and senators like Bernie Sanders have proposed stopping data centers nationwide. This is just the next phase of NIMBY-ism. Alternatively, source that the "data centers the industry wants are all going to get built"?

> I've seen fiercer opposition to a 4-story apartment building than to some of these data centers.

I'm guessing you're referring to rather cherry-picked data? I've seen data center opposition making even the national news, but I don't recall any '4-story apartment buildings' opposition doing so? And senators like Bernie Sanders are proposing halting data centers nationwide - are there any similar proposals to similarly outlaw such housing construction nationwide?

> People just like opposing development.… When I see a protest over a golf course opening, I'll take data center water use concerns seriously.

Agreed.

▲

tptacek 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Of course multiple areas have already banned data centers. So what? The United States is absolutely enormous. Data center buildout --- especially for AI training --- has a much easier problem than housing does. Housing needs to be built near centers of economic activity, which means that every marginal unit of housing is likely to be infill and has to pass muster with relatively dense neighborhoods of people who hate development. Data centers tend to be sited in underutilized industrial tracts. There are lots of those around the country.

I feel like what's obviously happening here is that people have a rooting interest against AI, and highly-publicized pushes against "AI data centers" in specific areas are simply sparking joy for people.

▲

no-name-here 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Is the argument that opposition to, and proposed bans of, data centers are only occurring on sites near dense population centers, as opposed to even covering incredibly low density sites? I'd say data center opposition goes beyond housing opposition as state-wide or even national bans have been proposed.

Many people similarly have a 'rooting interest' against public housing, public transit, even new housing in general in their area, and similarly celebrate when housing, transit, etc. get stopped. <shrug>

	▲	tptacek 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's exactly what I'm saying. This is an old story; it's just getting airplay because of the "AI" connection.

▲

taybin 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Bernie Sanders proposes a lot of things that are never implemented. I’m not sure his support is actually a useful signal of greater support.

	▲	bdangubic 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		it is (unfortunately) quite the opposite, if you see what he supports there is a high likelyhood of that not happening.

▲

cootsnuck 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The data centers the industry wants are all going to get built.

If that was the case then why are the majority of data center projects getting scrapped?

https://gizmodo.com/data-center-project-cancellations-quadru...

Why are insiders saying they only expect about 10% of data center projects to ever be completed?

Why is 2026 already shaping up to have less than half of planned data centers break ground on construction?

Local community opposition is a big driver but so is permitting and infra procurement.

https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/energy-power-supply/why-...

All of this is inconvenient to big tech's "inevitability" narratives.

▲

ojbyrne 3 hours ago | parent [-]

That Gizmodo article says none of the things you characterize it as saying.

Except sorta - "Peter Freed, Meta’s former director of energy strategy, who spoke to Heatmap, expects only about 10% of the projects that are currently underway to ever be completed."

Perhaps that's why he's a "former director" but that doesn't really qualify as an "insider."

	▲	cootsnuck 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yea, my bad. "majority getting scrapped” was sloppy wording. More accurate to say would be that a big chunk of the AI data center pipeline looks delayed/speculative. 16GW is slated for 2026, but only 5GW is actually under construction. https://www.sightlineclimate.com/research/data-center-outloo... I do think it's a bit ridiculous though to not consider someone a tech insider who was a director for a decade at one of the biggest tech companies in history...

▲

hunterpayne 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So you are why rents are so high then.

▲

ashdksnndck 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I do think the tech industry would be wise to do more outreach and less sneering, though.

The industry is actually doing real work on water issues in response to these complaints. Big tech companies are funding projects that will allow them to replenish more water than their datacenters consume. This isn’t actually that hard of a goal for them to meet, because as we know, the amount of water we’re talking about isn’t much on a national scale. Regardless, this will mean companies making some positive change in the communities where they build datacenters.

Anyway, all of this is a distraction compared to the real problem of carbon emissions. It confuses me that environmentalists are getting sidetracked by the water use distraction here when more natural gas and coal plants are coming online.

	▲	doodlebugging 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>...the amount of water we’re talking about isn’t much on a national scale. Water issues are always local issues. There is no national water distribution system or national aquifer. >this will mean companies making some positive change in the communities where they build datacenters. This will remain to be seen. So far, if it had worked out that way then there would be less vocal opposition to these data centers. Local perception seems to be that there will be nuisance to dangerous noise levels; heat islands which can cause local disruptions to weather events; closed-door agreements to build this infrastructure instead of open community involvement in the process; and other issues including concerns about excessive water usage especially in areas where there are already troubling water availability trends due to other forms of development. >when more natural gas and coal plants are coming online. Here in NTexas, the availability of and proximity to natural gas compression stations is key to data center siting from the ones that I have monitored. Plans seem to include construction of gas turbine generators to power the new data centers and these generators are sited on parcels very close to existing compressor stations and high-voltage power lines and small or medium local lakes.

▲

rcpt 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> It's not a completely insane idea and like all things can be reasonably discussed

Actually it's a completely insane idea that can't be reasonably discussed.