[moate]

>>absence of a correspondingly negative motivating event.

You don't think there's reasons pass laws banning AI...datacenters?

Because what state is banning the concept of AI? They're banning/restricting the creation of a type of infrastructure within their borders because they feel that is detrimental to their citizens. Maybe it's NIMBY/Luditte BS to you, but people not wanting their resources to go help ensure some dork can have a chat-bot girlfriend seems normal to me.

[hparadiz]

I'm already running an LLM locally. This is just me renting space in a data center. Since when did we restrict people's ability to do things? For the record my local models run off the solar bolted to my roof. Even including the data center I'm using 1/10th of the energy we were using on tube monitors back in the 90s. This is exhausting. My GPU would be demonstrably using more power by playing a videogame right now than when I run a local LLM.

[jrmg]

Since when did we restrict people's ability to do things?

This question is not the obvious winner you think it is. To me, and I am sure many, it sort of undermines your argument.

Even in the most ‘free' cultures, society has _always_ restricted people’s individual ability to do things that it collectively deems harmful to the whole society.

[hparadiz]

This is literally why America was founded. Too many people stifle innovation. Move to Europe if you want to be stuck in the 20th century frankly. That doesn't mean we can't take care of folks. But the ludites need to get the fuck out of the way. You're all exhausting.

[jrmg]

And people in the late 1700s were just allowed to do anything? (The answer to that is obviously ‘no’).

I’m not even in complete disagreement with your opinion on data centers (like, people are coming up with noise, water use, pollution and traffic arguments about why a data center should not replace a recently controversially closed paper mill near me, which is ridiculous), but your argument doesn’t work. You need to change it if you want to convince people.

[pocksuppet]

America was founded because rich people didn't want to pay taxes.

[moate]

>>when did we restrict people's abilities to do things? That's literally what most laws are, saying what you can and can't do. This is like, a foundational understanding of what government/regulation is.

>>this is just me renting space... Okay, so a "network effect" is when things have greater impact due to larger usage. So the data center usage that you're talking about does not represent the overall impact of the data center. Saying "I only pour ONE cup of bleach into the ocean, so I don't see why it's so bad to have the bleach factory pump all its waste in as well" is a WILD take.

[Arainach]

>Since when did we restrict people's ability to do things?

When those things impact other people - such as by skyrocketing utility prices, overloading the electrical grid, and more.

[hparadiz]

I thought this was a free market? Or is that not how things work anymore?

[balamatom]

An absolute free market would, by definition, permit the selling of the service "restrict someone's freedom for me".

Not sure if that leaves it a free market. So if we're gonna be talking holes in the cheese - seems like you're reasoning in terms of a basically self-contradictory notion.

But truly, what do you reckon about the 1st point, in terms of the interpretation of market freedom which you use?

[Arainach]

Never has been. A totally free market doesn't work and has failed every time it was tried. You want one today, go set up shop in Somalia.

[hparadiz]

I can't respect that opinion. It's full of holes.

[Arainach]

Holes such as what?

There have always been rules and laws. The US has never been a totally free market. Most of the laws and rules we have were written in blood by people professing a "free market" right to poison our people, rivers, air, and more.

[pocksuppet]

What are the holes? There are places today with no government - perfect free markets. If you think perfect free markets are awesome, you can move there and do business there. It's a bit like telling someone who loves communism to go to China.

[sumeno]

> Since when did we restrict people's ability to do things?

At least 4000 years ago, but that's just the earliest we have evidence for

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu

[hparadiz]

I don't think you understand the qualifier. I meant in the tradition of liberal free markets that have unlocked human potential on the global scale. I'm saying no it's actually good that you don't have to ask the local government when you want to do something. If American style free markets didn't gain traction we'd still be doing subsistence farming.

[tadfisher]

The thing is, since we recognized that such a tradition led to the unfettered destruction of the natural environment which we depend upon to survive, we have decided that local governments should be responsible for preserving said environment by regulating the destructive actions performed by the liberal free market. Not doing so will even destroy our ability to perform subsistence farming in the long run.

[hparadiz]

So far all I hear is complaining about electricity prices. No one actually cares about the "environment". They are just mad that the KW/h is up 3 cents.

[tadfisher]

Then you are not replying to me in good faith. I didn't say a thing about electricity rates.

[cortesoft]

Why should we stop there? Let’s ban people flying on vacations, because why should our resources go towards some dork laying out in the sun? Air travel is horribly wasteful. Let’s ban people racing cars, that is also wasteful. We shouldn’t be using our resources to drive in circles.

How do we pick which activities are worth using resources? Which ones are too ‘dorky’ to allow?

Look, I am all for pricing the externalities into resource consumption. Tax carbon production, to make sure energy consumption is sustainable, but don’t dictate which uses of energy are acceptable or ‘worth it’, because I don’t want only mainstream things to be allowed.

[akersten]

I didn't say any of that in my comment nor express an opinion about this whole thing writ large. I'm only pointing out that it's not weird for legislature to preempt a real world use case by way of pointing out similar laws.

[moate]

I'm going to do this again:

>>>>absence of a correspondingly negative motivating event.

What did you mean? Why do you believe there has not been a motivating event to ban data centers when those bans have happened, which is literally what you said?

[akersten]

In the context of the discussion a correspondingly negative event would have been along the lines of "we built a data center and then it exploded, we need to make sure that doesn't happen." Not "we're worried about the effects the data center might have," which is vis a vis to "we're worried about the effects banning ai might have." All I'm saying is neither of those last two are weird reasons to enact a law.

GP was insisting that "rights" named laws always come after some negative event and it is weird that we have this "rights" named law without someone being deprived of their computation or whatever. I'm disagreeing with the premise that that's weird by pointing out laws preempt real world events all the time, in either direction (restrictive or permissive).

[baggy_trough]

> Maybe it's NIMBY/Luditte BS to you, but people not wanting their resources to go help ensure some dork can have a chat-bot girlfriend seems normal to me.

Why would it be your business, or anyone else's, to stop someone from doing this?

[jmye]

> Why would it be your business, or anyone else's, to stop someone from doing this?

Because, in this country, we have “local government” wherein a bunch of people who live near each other have frequently banded together to make laws about the places they live. Surely this isn’t shocking news to you? Surely you’ve encountered this phenomenon before?

Why do you think you have a right to do anything you want, anywhere you want, no matter what?

[baggy_trough]

That some group of people passed a foolish law does not make it any of their business. That would have to be argued separately.

[jmye]

That they live in the affected place makes it their business - I'm not clear why you think it's any of yours based on the thread of your arguments. Perhaps it's better to let people govern themselves and mind the laws where you live instead of whining that they won't do what you want them to in their own backyard?

[Arainach]

Because these data centers are at best overstressing utility grids and elevating prices for everyone and at worse running dirty generators and poisoning entire communities, for a start.

[15155]

Oh no, we couldn't possibly generate more power! Impossible! We're at our limit!

China has 100 reactors under construction - meanwhile in the West, folks like you exist.

[int_19h]

In the West the new datacenters popping up are mostly powered by gas.

[Arainach]

If the businesses that want data centers want to pay the full construction costs for the new power plants, great. Otherwise consumers are paying for them in the rates they pay to energy companies.

It should not be considered shocking or controversial that people already hit hard by corporate greed and other effects of late-stage capitalism don't want to pay higher utility rates to subsidize the data centers being built by megacorporations who want to take away even more of their jobs.