I mean, that’s generally the case at any employer… their revenue and profits can go any which way, either as a company or as their investors’ returns, and employees generally don’t have a say.
I think the owner/exec-worker split is also pretty common at most orgs. Different types of people get into them, and ethics are almost never one of leadership’s priorities. Shareholders rarely care anyway, so they’re just “doing their jobs” in a sense (not that I agree with it).
I think in the real world it’s even worse than that, with many of the data centers pretending to be green upfront (or maybe are for a few months/years at first) but then eventually get dirtier as maintenance issues arise (the water isn’t as closed-loop as they hoped) or the need for power increases (surpassing the renewable part and needing more fossil fuel supplements).
The grid can’t keep up, nuclear can’t keep up, renewables can sometimes, but not always and not everywhere, and fossil fuels are easy everywhere and ramp up and down easily.
There is no realistic version of enforcing this without an EPA with teeth. We barely have an EPA left at all. A Dem congress can’t rebuild one on its own, and even they won the next presidency, a stacked Supreme Court could easily overrule or delay any real changes there, and re-hiring all the competent people back would take decades.
The best-intentioned regulations cannot survive greed and need of this scale. We simply don’t have a government capable of enforcing it at any meaningful level.
Honestly, it would probably take vigilante action, as with Flock cameras, to actually stall them.
No, not really. For example Meta’s Gallatin data center in Tennessee is a hyperscale facility which uses 80% less water than similarly-sized facilities.
If we do nothing, sure. However these election results, and the tumbling stocks of data center infrastructure providers, will likely mean a move away from laissez faire, that’s the point.
I’m with you, I’m old enough to remember when corporations routinely made pollution everybody else’s problem. It was part of their business model. It guaranteed their target profit, and so what if a couple of rivers caught fire?
When public outrage was sufficient, in came the legislation that said “no more.” But what if our business can’t support those costs and remain profitable? Tough shit.
Such safeguards are always subject to the lobbying of deregulation scoundrels. But air and water quality remain significantly improved.
Anyway, is the current public outrage past a similar tipping point? When it is, corporations will suddenly figure out a profitable model that doesn’t screw over the public.
The key to effective regulation is to make it inescapable by your competition. Which means making it Federal.
As long as any business, be it data centers or car factories or franchise fast food, can play off state and local authorities against one another it will be a race to the bottom. Once the feds step up and say “This is the law for everyone everywhere”, then everyone grumbles, everyone complies, and the businessmen can go back to competing with each other on the new and different, but still level, playing field.
The original federal minimum wage was introduced as part of the New Deal’s Depression-ending reforms precisely to prevent a race to the bottom of slave wages for all.
Would that such sentiments regain force in our country.
Water loss and noise are both fake problems and post-hoc explanations. People oppose data-centers because they don’t like AI and the politics of the tech oligarchs, water use is just an argument they feel lends an air of scientific credibility.
Aside from the NIMBY objections to data centers, and Democratic / public pushback against data centers and / or the AI industry in general, is it possible the AI industry may collapse from within?
I’ve heard rumors of an AI bubble about to pop for awhile (of which yesterday’s tech stock selloff may be a harbinger). AI companies are heavily subsidizing the costs of AI, to get and keep users of it onboard. It’s reminiscent to me of the late 90s ‘Web 1.0’ tech bubble, where tech companies kept popping up, burning through VC money pushing what was often not much more than vaporware; the mantra being ‘don’t worry about profits: if you build the market share, the profits will come’. But the profits didn’t come, at least not quickly enough, and the house of cards eventually collapsed.
I’ve also heard, from posts in other AI threads on this board as well as other sources, that the recent ‘call is coming from within the house’ warnings of an AI apocalypse by AI execs themselves, were more an attempt by AI CEOs at facilitating government intervention and bailouts than actual fear that their own technology might destroy humanity.
Don’t get me wrong; I don’t think that AI will go away; the genie is out of the bottle. But there seems to be a nexus right now of massive debt incurred by the AI companies, public pushback, and yes, real fear that maybe the industry is moving too quickly without a clear plan for the future that will benefit more than just a handful of AI-supporting oligarchs.
Google had a data center that used 1.4 billion gallons of drinking water in a year, and small towns, like Dalles, Oregon are having as much as 1/3 of their water supply going to the local data center. And water scarcity was already an issue for much of the US before the AI boom.
But in any case, let’s say overuse of water is fake news. So you’d have no objection to regulations on not wasting water, right? If there’s no problem then the regulations have no effect.
Probably should tackle things that actually waste water at relevant levels then rather than waste time on stupid bullshit that’s a rounding error of actual problems.
This is a non sequitur. “Why would you object to administrative burden that solves nothing!?”
Because it is. Like a lot lot.
That much water could supply the entire yearly residential use of a 30,000- to 50,000-person city.
Not to mention the increase in the cost of utilities, the decrease in water quality, and the impact on the ecologies of the lakes and rivers.
No, it is not wildly out of distribution for other industrial buildings. Larger than some, even most. Smaller than others. And inconsequential compared to water wasted in other industries.
thus driving up the price for people who live there and need to drink and wash and so forth from that same supply. it’s overuse as far as I’m concerned.
How are they going to get to trillionaire status while you’re forcing them to make a minimal effort to at least use known technology like closed loop cooling?
George Soros- massive Dem donations. Jeff Yass backed Vivek Ramaswamy’s run for Ohio governor, etc.
Uihleins’ largest recipient is Restoration of America PAC, a conservative super PAC that acts as a clearinghouse for other groups, to which they have given over $57.7 million.
While that is mostly true in modern times, Trump threw the back door approach out the back door. He welcomes them in public with his hand stretched out. Need a pardon? Buy off Trump. Need a trade deal? Buy off Trump. And need favorable treatment of/legislation for/removal of regulations from? Contribute to the inauguration/ballroom/America 250. Buy off Trump.
Trump is so proud that everyone comes bearing gifts like ambassadors to a king that he shouts the supposedly quiet part out loud. Money is his only way of knowing who is kowtowing properly to him.
I don’t know exactly how Trump will respond to losing the midterms because my brain is tethered to reality and his isn’t. But having him change the reflexes of a lifetime is beyond a fantasy writer’s imagination. The tech bros will publicly tone down the rhetoric for the next two years but they’ll be OK as long as they change AI to SI. Even OpenASI.
I should have been more clear, and said Silicon Valley billionaires. In addition to your list, I think Bloomberg also gave lots of money to the Democrats.
Of the eight main Silicon Valley billionaires (Brin, Schmitt, Page, Zuckerberg, Andreessen, Thiel, Horowitz and Huang) 5 support liberal or Democratic causes, one is neutral and two are conservative, of which Huang is the only rabid trump supporter.
So, again, your hypothesis is wrong. Why not research the subject?
1.4 Billion? is quite a bit. But California almond growers use 1.5 trillion gallons a year. So- 1000 times as much. So, 1.4 Billion is not trivial, but it is not a “lot lot”.
LOL. Thiel and Andreessen are far and away the biggest Trump supporters out of that group, it’s not remotely close. Thiel is possibly the most influential MAGA person in the entire country. Huang doesn’t care about politics, he’s a robot that cares about GPUs only. The Google guys and Zuckerberg have all taken a hard right turn the past couple years. Wild post.
Page, Andreessen, Schmitt and Zuckerberg all supported Republicans this year. Yes, in the past they supported liberal causes. I assume you counted Thiel as the other conservative. I haven’t heard what Brin and Horowitz did. Plus I would definitely count Musk as a Silicon Valley billionaire, even if he has moved. Definitely an AI person.
The Times had an article in the business section about this today, so I’m far from the only one seeing it. Given the market yesterday, investors do also.
Huang knows that any slowdown of the AI build out is going to affect shipments of his chips, make him not meet his targets, and tank the stock. So he is into politics to support his business.
Sadly this is true. I have watched how politics and the world works and it all comes down to $$. If they send $ to the Dems I suppose they will want the feds to build the data centers for them