NIMBY is largely used for housing development discussions and to contort it in support of developing data centers is incredibly intellectually dishonest.
If we're going to rebrand things to blur lines, I propose rebranding data centers to pedophile content hubs.
The rest of your argument is full of similar cherry-picking for dishonest discourse.
>NIMBY is largely used for housing development discussions and to contort it in support of developing data centers is incredibly intellectually dishonest.
No, it's frequently used in infrastructure discussions as well, eg. high speed rail or power transmission lines.
That pointless infrastructure that has ‘inconvenienced’ landowners is also destroying a national park, so I guess we are all being inconvenienced. And funneled billions of tax dollars to private contractors.
Opposing new housing construction is bad in basically the same way that opposing data center construction is bad; and I'm happy to use the same word to describe both groups of people.
There is a much stronger argument for why housing should be built near existing housing than for why data centers need to be built near existing housing. Housing NIMBYs are being unreasonable because if they got their way the only new housing would be built in the middle of nowhere, which is clearly unworkable. Data center NIMBYs are arguing for much the same thing, but focusing on building data centers a good distance away from housing seems pretty reasonable.
> Data center NIMBYs are arguing for much the same thing, but focusing on building data centers a good distance away from housing seems pretty reasonable.
The trouble here is that the two things are related. It's easy to build a data center 50 miles outside the city. But because we don't allow higher density housing to be built, they instead have to build low density housing all the way out into what should have been rural land. Then you go outside the city to try to build something and instead of the neighbors being forests or fields of grain it's exurbs.
Why is opposing data center construction bad? People need housing, if there isn't enough affordable housing around, then opposing it can be bad. But also people who live there should have a say in what gets built near them, since they have to live with it.
The world and its people would continue to thrive if AI data centers magically vanished tomorrow. They are not necessary infrastructure. They're only necessary for wall street right now.
There's no evidence to support that. There's even arguments to be made that Internet and cell phones have ruined segments of society. We need to take a step back and make sure new life changing technologies are properly regulated, and built safely with communities in mind. Instead, we're going all in gung-ho, because we think its some kind of winnable race, while ignoring all the damage (environmental, privacy, tax payer cost, consumer cost, etc etc). AI will never fix those items.
The reality is we're not doing AI safely because our 401ks and the folks with 12 digits in the portfolio wouldn't grow as quickly as they are if it were regulated.
Infrastructure for what? To push AI, crypto and gambling on everyone? How about build this "infrastructure" in the back yards of billionaires? They should have plenty of land.
If we're going to rebrand things to blur lines, I propose rebranding data centers to pedophile content hubs.
The rest of your argument is full of similar cherry-picking for dishonest discourse.