3 ms·

It’s a one year moratorium. I don’t see a problem with this. A lot of voters are concerned about the impacts data centers will have, those concerns are not enti

by afavour 3mo ago

It’s a one year moratorium. I don’t see a problem with this. A lot of voters are concerned about the impacts data centers will have, those concerns are not entirely unwarranted. We don’t actually have to be moving at breakneck speeds, the AI companies just want you to think we do. A pause to investigate seems warranted.

cmiles8 3mo ago
Exactly. Towns are also increasingly nervous that when the bottom drops out of the AI bubble they’ll be left with abandoned half-built data centers blighting their communities. It’s a serious concern that looks increasingly plausible. The bond market for financing buildouts is looking shaky and even Amazon struggled there in its last go at loaning money to fuel the buildout. That doesn’t bode well for others.
- chucksta 3mo ago
  Even a completed one has limited use to other industries
thinkingtoilet 3mo ago
Let's be honest. There is a way to safely build data centers. Sensible laws could be made for them to build enough solar so they can power themselves or they are responsible for the cost of increasing capacity. Things like environmental impact and pollution need to be taken into account. However, since this is America, that won't happen. So companies will build these data centers in red states with little to no regulation and those people will pay for the increase in power capacity, the environmental and public health damages, etc...
pj_mukh 3mo ago
Blocking is easy, UN-blocking is hard (see: zoning and housing). There are no objective concerns to be met, and there will never be. I would bet a lot of money the moratorium is indefinitely extended every year. Always thought letting populism define a "slow-down" was silly, its a moratorium and a permanent veto everyone is looking for. It's fine, the data centers will be built elsewhere in more politically impoverished states, New York and especially NYC will still reap the benefits and offload solving the gnarly energy problems to someone else. Federalism working?
- afavour 3mo ago
  > There are no objective concerns to be met Are you sure? Most of the objections I've seen center around environmental impact and effect on residential energy pricing in the surrounding area. Both of these seem to be to be objectively measurable. > the data centers will be built elsewhere in more politically impoverished states What does "politically impoverished" mean? I'd say more "politically permissive" states would make more sense here. Red states are not impoverished of politics, they just have different politics.
  - pj_mukh 3mo ago
    "environmental impact and effect on residential energy pricing" Sooo, how does that change in New York in a year? You've mostly re-inforced my point. And specifically the bill doesn't use any automatic re-enablement criteria, so data centers are basically dead in the state. Realistically, this is a canard, AI scares people and environmental impact is a lever to use to stop it. Ask yourself this: if this was a new Ford plant (dirtier, also uses a lot of energy), would we be having this conversation? I actually do mean politically impoverished. Banning Data centers is a horsehoe populism issue, the right wing loves it too. The data center builders will just have to find municipalities with less people and/or a less engaged political atmosphere aka politically impoverished. They mostly already have.
    - dlubarov 3mo ago
      Yeah - there seem to be a lot of pretenses which don't actually justify banning a particular industry. If environmental concerns were the real issue, we'd be talking about how to tweak those regulations. If power distribution was the real issue, we'd be talking about the economics of power companies, and tweaking the rules about billing for infrastructure upgrades. It's strange how we're suddenly talking about things like illegal concrete dumping, as if concrete foundations were somehow specific to datacenters, and not 99% of buildings built in the past century.
      - overfeed 3mo ago
joering2 3mo ago
> We don’t actually have to be moving at breakneck speeds According to one Canadian, er sorry, a UE citizen, er sorry, an Irishman named Kevin O'Leary, who is seeing Chinese spys everywhere, we actually do need to move with breakneck speed, because otherwise the quality of American lives will be forever gone. Or at least infuse of naive VC money flowing into his pockets will be gone.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
UncleOxidant 3mo ago
To some extent you wonder if this "tapping the brakes" might be saving some companies from themselves. It's likely we're in the overinvestment phase of this technological cycle and that's usually followed by the bust phase where a lot of companies with a lot of debt go under. See The Panic of 1873 and the overbuilding of railroads (and huge debt accumulation) that led to that.
rainsford 3mo ago
I also feel like there has been very little discussion of a localized benefit of data centers compared to the negative impacts. As someone who uses AI and other services that need data centers, I certainly understand why they need to exist. I have not heard a compelling argument for why they need to exist anywhere near me. I'm generally anti-NIMBY, but usually with the understanding that there is actually benefit to certain things existing in my proverbial backyard. If that argument exists for data centers I've yet to hear it.
- cogman10 3mo ago
  Yup. This is my main issue with these datacenters. They have a few major local negatives (higher electrical prices, potentially high pollution, noise) and almost no real benefit due to their location. I experience no difference when I run my LLM either here in the US or in the EU or even in China. So why should these be given any special treatment and tax benefits? They don't really create jobs locally (beyond the initial construction) and they won't bring in any sort of tax revenue beyond what you could get from property taxes. That makes them just a general nuisance. They are much like sewage or landfills, they serve a purpose and are needed but boy would I never want one near me (unless the company actually ends up paying for my community). It certainly doesn't help that AI CEOs just can't help but to larp as Captain Planet supervillans when giving public talks to investors.
Ferret7446 3mo ago
> We don’t actually have to be moving at breakneck speeds There are a lot of bankrupt companies and fallen nations that believed this. Complacency will hurt you, but only when you realize it too late.

by afavour 3mo ago

cmiles8 3mo ago

Exactly. Towns are also increasingly nervous that when the bottom drops out of the AI bubble they’ll be left with abandoned half-built data centers blighting their communities. It’s a serious concern that looks increasingly plausible. The bond market for financing buildouts is looking shaky and even Amazon struggled there in its last go at loaning money to fuel the buildout. That doesn’t bode well for others.

chucksta 3mo ago
Even a completed one has limited use to other industries

thinkingtoilet 3mo ago

Let's be honest. There is a way to safely build data centers. Sensible laws could be made for them to build enough solar so they can power themselves or they are responsible for the cost of increasing capacity. Things like environmental impact and pollution need to be taken into account. However, since this is America, that won't happen. So companies will build these data centers in red states with little to no regulation and those people will pay for the increase in power capacity, the environmental and public health damages, etc...

pj_mukh 3mo ago

Blocking is easy, UN-blocking is hard (see: zoning and housing). There are no objective concerns to be met, and there will never be. I would bet a lot of money the moratorium is indefinitely extended every year. Always thought letting populism define a "slow-down" was silly, its a moratorium and a permanent veto everyone is looking for. It's fine, the data centers will be built elsewhere in more politically impoverished states, New York and especially NYC will still reap the benefits and offload solving the gnarly energy problems to someone else. Federalism working?

afavour 3mo ago
> There are no objective concerns to be met Are you sure? Most of the objections I've seen center around environmental impact and effect on residential energy pricing in the surrounding area. Both of these seem to be to be objectively measurable. > the data centers will be built elsewhere in more politically impoverished states What does "politically impoverished" mean? I'd say more "politically permissive" states would make more sense here. Red states are not impoverished of politics, they just have different politics.
- pj_mukh 3mo ago
  "environmental impact and effect on residential energy pricing" Sooo, how does that change in New York in a year? You've mostly re-inforced my point. And specifically the bill doesn't use any automatic re-enablement criteria, so data centers are basically dead in the state. Realistically, this is a canard, AI scares people and environmental impact is a lever to use to stop it. Ask yourself this: if this was a new Ford plant (dirtier, also uses a lot of energy), would we be having this conversation? I actually do mean politically impoverished. Banning Data centers is a horsehoe populism issue, the right wing loves it too. The data center builders will just have to find municipalities with less people and/or a less engaged political atmosphere aka politically impoverished. They mostly already have.
  - dlubarov 3mo ago
    Yeah - there seem to be a lot of pretenses which don't actually justify banning a particular industry. If environmental concerns were the real issue, we'd be talking about how to tweak those regulations. If power distribution was the real issue, we'd be talking about the economics of power companies, and tweaking the rules about billing for infrastructure upgrades. It's strange how we're suddenly talking about things like illegal concrete dumping, as if concrete foundations were somehow specific to datacenters, and not 99% of buildings built in the past century.
    - overfeed 3mo ago

joering2 3mo ago

> We don’t actually have to be moving at breakneck speeds According to one Canadian, er sorry, a UE citizen, er sorry, an Irishman named Kevin O'Leary, who is seeing Chinese spys everywhere, we actually do need to move with breakneck speed, because otherwise the quality of American lives will be forever gone. Or at least infuse of naive VC money flowing into his pockets will be gone.

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]

UncleOxidant 3mo ago

To some extent you wonder if this "tapping the brakes" might be saving some companies from themselves. It's likely we're in the overinvestment phase of this technological cycle and that's usually followed by the bust phase where a lot of companies with a lot of debt go under. See The Panic of 1873 and the overbuilding of railroads (and huge debt accumulation) that led to that.

rainsford 3mo ago

I also feel like there has been very little discussion of a localized benefit of data centers compared to the negative impacts. As someone who uses AI and other services that need data centers, I certainly understand why they need to exist. I have not heard a compelling argument for why they need to exist anywhere near me. I'm generally anti-NIMBY, but usually with the understanding that there is actually benefit to certain things existing in my proverbial backyard. If that argument exists for data centers I've yet to hear it.

cogman10 3mo ago
Yup. This is my main issue with these datacenters. They have a few major local negatives (higher electrical prices, potentially high pollution, noise) and almost no real benefit due to their location. I experience no difference when I run my LLM either here in the US or in the EU or even in China. So why should these be given any special treatment and tax benefits? They don't really create jobs locally (beyond the initial construction) and they won't bring in any sort of tax revenue beyond what you could get from property taxes. That makes them just a general nuisance. They are much like sewage or landfills, they serve a purpose and are needed but boy would I never want one near me (unless the company actually ends up paying for my community). It certainly doesn't help that AI CEOs just can't help but to larp as Captain Planet supervillans when giving public talks to investors.

Ferret7446 3mo ago

> We don’t actually have to be moving at breakneck speeds There are a lot of bankrupt companies and fallen nations that believed this. Complacency will hurt you, but only when you realize it too late.