> we're already in this situation

xAI’s datacenters aren’t currently measurably replacing labour. So no, we’re not. If AI becomes economically competitive with broad sections of human labor, those who control it do have the power to replace humans.

But banning domestic datacenters doesn’t stop them from existing; it just stops them from existing here. If that precondition arises, that’s just a recipe for domestic deindustrialisation.

If you believe AI will replace human labor, blocking datacenters is silly. You want labor (or the public) to build and control them. I’m not convinced AI will replace labor, so I’m not yet at that step.

▲

fc417fc802 8 minutes ago | parent [-]

I think the point being made regarding xAI was that even if the datacenter is local that doesn't necessarily result in any meaningful difference. In other words, having more AI datacenters under your jurisdiction might or might not provide a meaningful ability to regulate in a way that shapes the impact of AI on the economy. (I do agree with you that it's almost certainly a good idea to have them though.)

	▲	JumpCrisscross 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> the point being made regarding xAI was that even if the datacenter is local that doesn't necessarily result in any meaningful difference Oh, absolutely agree. But the datacentre in Memphis is within its jurisdiction. If Nashville decides to stick it with a tax to fund a UBI, they can. Sacramento and Columbus don't have that option. To be clear, I am not arguing for more datacenters being built the way they are being built. But if you believe AI will replace labour, you want to control those datacenters. Blocking them explicitly cedes that control.