I do think it is good that this article is so detailed, but the core of the argument is so obvious, that even the need to say it points to something pretty bad.
AI needs much better critics. Any industry needs physical space and if humans are to make anything at all, they will need space for it. Compared to what industries exists Data Centers are *extremely* gentle on the environment. Do people not know how dirty e.g. the chemical industry can get and how much land and water they use?
If you are vaguely aware what industrial production looks like, you immediately recognise that data Centers are one of the nicest things you could have in your area.
The problem is that AI very directly affects the chattering class, so to them it's an existential horror. It's the same reason that articles about the misery of a job dealing with social media moderation are way over-represented as opposed to say mining rare-earth minerals. They're not doing a comparative environment-impact ranking of industries. They're writing the article "Why this industry which threatens my job is bad".
I suspect this will be controversial, which is kind of the point. But I appreciate you saying these things clearly because I suspect many of us policy nerds are a little bit too nervous about violating assumptions to make this point publicly. That I say this anonymously kind of proves the point.
Outside of the specifics, which are great, I was really struck by this:
“I try to use data centers as a prism through which to understand much larger but invisible environmental problems, hidden by our tendencies toward populism and localism that data centers offend.”
I’d go one further to suggest this is an even broader synecdoche for policy work beyond just land-use and the environment. It’s something that replicates in my area of expertise (healthcare/science) where valorization of the noble profession obscures the terrible terrible incentives in place, making it so we can’t explicitly critique conduct or fix problems and need to work on minor issues on the margins.
That, of course, leads to a lot of antipathy towards political winds that barnstorm into the room from the SMEs, when the pressure has built. You can see this with a lot of the attempts at reform currently in the news.
Brilliant work. Agree with 95% of it. The only place my allegiance switched was the small town losing its adjacent green space. I would regret losing that to any operation. Might change my mind if the architecture was such that the data centres were intergrated with and augmented the greenspace.
Andy, have you written any posts yet on the worries about air pollution or (audible) sound? I'd love to see those steel-manned, so I could have something real to redirect my AI-will-cause-environmental-doomed friends' interests to.
The issue I always felt was least likely to be fake or heavily overstated was thermal pollution of water - but I haven't heard as much as a peep from any critic about this, aside from that frankly bonkers "data centers are heating the air by many degrees" paper.
Of course, thermal pollution issues are local by definition, and solvable by just not building in specific vulnerable spots. They wouldn't advance the overall "AI has to go away" cause much.
You know what, fair enough because I've done the exact same argument in the vein of "liberal arts boy thinks the cloud is the white things you see in the sky / how do you think you can read this comment." Thank you for reminding me to argue better.
Thank you! The sympathy for the wealthy, rent seeking, animal torturing, water table breaking, massively polluting farming lobby is absolutely baffling.
Nice work! What I read seemed quite good. But this article still seems too long for most people? Maybe move more of the details into appendices after the conclusion, like you did with "some recent bad articles.."
I do think it is good that this article is so detailed, but the core of the argument is so obvious, that even the need to say it points to something pretty bad.
AI needs much better critics. Any industry needs physical space and if humans are to make anything at all, they will need space for it. Compared to what industries exists Data Centers are *extremely* gentle on the environment. Do people not know how dirty e.g. the chemical industry can get and how much land and water they use?
If you are vaguely aware what industrial production looks like, you immediately recognise that data Centers are one of the nicest things you could have in your area.
The problem is that AI very directly affects the chattering class, so to them it's an existential horror. It's the same reason that articles about the misery of a job dealing with social media moderation are way over-represented as opposed to say mining rare-earth minerals. They're not doing a comparative environment-impact ranking of industries. They're writing the article "Why this industry which threatens my job is bad".
This. Absolutely this.
I suspect this will be controversial, which is kind of the point. But I appreciate you saying these things clearly because I suspect many of us policy nerds are a little bit too nervous about violating assumptions to make this point publicly. That I say this anonymously kind of proves the point.
Outside of the specifics, which are great, I was really struck by this:
“I try to use data centers as a prism through which to understand much larger but invisible environmental problems, hidden by our tendencies toward populism and localism that data centers offend.”
I’d go one further to suggest this is an even broader synecdoche for policy work beyond just land-use and the environment. It’s something that replicates in my area of expertise (healthcare/science) where valorization of the noble profession obscures the terrible terrible incentives in place, making it so we can’t explicitly critique conduct or fix problems and need to work on minor issues on the margins.
That, of course, leads to a lot of antipathy towards political winds that barnstorm into the room from the SMEs, when the pressure has built. You can see this with a lot of the attempts at reform currently in the news.
Great work.
At least with all the problems with academia, scientists basically unanimously acknowledge them.
Brilliant work. Agree with 95% of it. The only place my allegiance switched was the small town losing its adjacent green space. I would regret losing that to any operation. Might change my mind if the architecture was such that the data centres were intergrated with and augmented the greenspace.
"Intergrated" lol. Cast or wrought iron grates, I'm not sure which would be best.
Andy, have you written any posts yet on the worries about air pollution or (audible) sound? I'd love to see those steel-manned, so I could have something real to redirect my AI-will-cause-environmental-doomed friends' interests to.
It’s on the list! Should be out in May
https://andymasley.substack.com/p/to-be-clear-i-do-understand-how-sound
The issue I always felt was least likely to be fake or heavily overstated was thermal pollution of water - but I haven't heard as much as a peep from any critic about this, aside from that frankly bonkers "data centers are heating the air by many degrees" paper.
Of course, thermal pollution issues are local by definition, and solvable by just not building in specific vulnerable spots. They wouldn't advance the overall "AI has to go away" cause much.
"City boy thinks food comes from the store"
You know what, fair enough because I've done the exact same argument in the vein of "liberal arts boy thinks the cloud is the white things you see in the sky / how do you think you can read this comment." Thank you for reminding me to argue better.
Just to be clear, it's not " the Senate’s overweighting of low-population states. " - that's from our founders, in the U.S. constitution.
Thank you! The sympathy for the wealthy, rent seeking, animal torturing, water table breaking, massively polluting farming lobby is absolutely baffling.
Nice work! What I read seemed quite good. But this article still seems too long for most people? Maybe move more of the details into appendices after the conclusion, like you did with "some recent bad articles.."
Why are the hyperscalers buying so much land and then only building on a small fraction of it? Is it just space for future construction?
I suspect a part of it’s to offset the data centers from the areas around them, I’m not sure
Surely part of it is the light pollution issues, setbacks probably help to avoid causing more problems with neighbors.
Incidentally light pollution isn’t listed on the top chart in the article? I’d love to see you look into this.