> This is a weird position for me to be in! I’ve always been a good predictable lib and don’t find myself on the opposite side of almost all media coverage often. It’s driven me a little crazy and does make me worry I’m missing something everyone else seems to see. But after a year of following this with no really satisfying answers, it’s become hard not to start to think I’m the one with my feet on the ground here.
You should probably sit down and think to yourself about what other issues "almost all" media coverage that a "good predictable lib" might be exposed to takes a position on, where that position is actually badly wrong; and isn't getting systematically corrected because people keep insisting that the people who bring up arguments against it are shills for some power or conspiracy theorists. It's certainly not just the issue of AI data centers.
For what it's worth, I think you've made a solid case and I'm pretty much convinced. I don't have any special knowledge about data centers, but I'm an AI safety researcher and former software engineer, with some background in climate research (I developed a widely used algorithm for measuring precipitation).
Prior to your series on this, I assumed that the claims about data centers having unusual bad effects were mostly correct, so I was initially skeptical of your counterclaims. I'm not sure I've read literally everything you've written on the issue, but I've certainly read most of them, and have dug into various of your sources and worked through some of the math, and your arguments have consistently held up modulo small quibbles here and there.
I think you've successfully made the case that this is essentially a moral panic, and the energy going into fighting data centers ought to be redirected to more important issues. I remain open to the possibility that data centers are actually causing disproportionate harm, but as you say here, at this point I would have to see some solid concrete evidence to be convinced of that.
its the vibes... AI has bad vibes for people that don't use it (not counting google search). I think that's still probably most people.
> This is a weird position for me to be in! I’ve always been a good predictable lib and don’t find myself on the opposite side of almost all media coverage often. It’s driven me a little crazy and does make me worry I’m missing something everyone else seems to see. But after a year of following this with no really satisfying answers, it’s become hard not to start to think I’m the one with my feet on the ground here.
You should probably sit down and think to yourself about what other issues "almost all" media coverage that a "good predictable lib" might be exposed to takes a position on, where that position is actually badly wrong; and isn't getting systematically corrected because people keep insisting that the people who bring up arguments against it are shills for some power or conspiracy theorists. It's certainly not just the issue of AI data centers.
For what it's worth, I think you've made a solid case and I'm pretty much convinced. I don't have any special knowledge about data centers, but I'm an AI safety researcher and former software engineer, with some background in climate research (I developed a widely used algorithm for measuring precipitation).
Prior to your series on this, I assumed that the claims about data centers having unusual bad effects were mostly correct, so I was initially skeptical of your counterclaims. I'm not sure I've read literally everything you've written on the issue, but I've certainly read most of them, and have dug into various of your sources and worked through some of the math, and your arguments have consistently held up modulo small quibbles here and there.
I think you've successfully made the case that this is essentially a moral panic, and the energy going into fighting data centers ought to be redirected to more important issues. I remain open to the possibility that data centers are actually causing disproportionate harm, but as you say here, at this point I would have to see some solid concrete evidence to be convinced of that.