I think the problem is that they don't control what happens next. The whole premise of AI data center buildouts is basically, "We think we can replace you with a robot so we'll be able to make even more money." So, even if _this data center in particular_ is okay, it's just like saying, "Well, we haven't driven over the cliff yet, so why are you complaining?"

Worse is that there's every evidence that AI is actually just a waste of money, but because there's so much investment in it, we'll all get to lose our jobs when it flops anyway. In the long-term it's just a lose/lose for everyone, and I think people are starting to figure that out. There's general mistrust, because the investors and the implementers are not trustworthy.

▲

twiclo 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Thank you for being one of the few thoughtful responses. I do feel like people's opinions here are more a position on AI in general than this data center. I come from a stance of, "this is happening so we might as well benefit from it"

▲

pixl97 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Well yes. If a car window gets broken in your town, well that's a simple crime. But if entire parking lots full of cars get their windows broken out that's a crime spree and resources need setup in dealing with it.

The issue with incremental problems and quantity problems is you can't point at a single one and go "here, here is the problem" (at least most of the time), you have to look at the entire problem and go "Shit, the paperclip maximizer building one paperclip isn't an issue, it's turning everything into paperclips that's the issue".

And that's where we are.

	▲	pjc50 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Ah, but what if you could automate smashing every car window in the city? That would really drive profit to your autoglass business! (ghost of Bastiat laughs in the distance)