[Gormo]

The point you're trying to make here seems to depend on an underlying premise that for people to use their property in certain ways, it's not enough that they comply with the various rules intended to minimize negative externalities, but that they must also somehow create positive externalities for others in proximity.

That premise isn't one that's generally adhered to as either a moral or legal principle, especially in the US, where we tend to have a strong preference for protecting property rights, and only justify restrictions on the basis of preventing harm to others, not some obligation to create benefit for them.

But aside from that, you seem to be conceding the point -- that opposition to new data centers is coming from concerns about AI itself, and not concerns related merely to the constriction of new commercial infrastructure.

[davkan]

No, my point is that is how most people evaluate these things. How does this massive infrastructure project benefit me and my community. And the math with datacenters is very clearly that they don't. You may think that they have no right to restrict building on private property but that is simply not the case. Municipalities usually do have the right to restrict usage of private property based on their laws. This premise plays out literally everywhere. Not always positively, re NIMBYs.

The recent increase opposition to datacenters online and at national level is absolutely due to AI. AI is in the zeitgeist. And also datacenter construction is increasing as a direct result of AI. I fully agree that the reason datacenter memes are on instagram right now is because of AI.

But at a local level it is fundamentally not about AI, it's about the effect on the community, which again, is negative. AI does have some small part because, as much as you may dislike it, sentiment about the purpose of a project does have an effect on a community's willingness to give a green light. But it's far from the defining issue at a local level where the actual resistance is. Communities were rallying against datacenter construction well before AI entered the conversation.

[Gormo]

I don't think most people see things this way. That itself is likely an exaggerated perception, and NIMBYism isn't quite as much of a controlling factor as is often believed. These projects usually do get built, but when NIMBYs do succeed, it's because they manage to demonstrate how the project runs afoul of rules that are there to prevent negative externalities. Again, there are no rules mandating positive ones, and even if that mindset motivates some people, it is not and never has been actionable in its own right.

> The recent increase opposition to datacenters online and at national level is absolutely due to AI.

Yes, that's exactly the point I'm making: the complaints about exaggerated externalities (and novel arguments like complaining that power consumption per se is somehow an externality) are all contrivances, and nonsubstantive in their own right.

> But at a local level it is fundamentally not about AI, it's about the effect on the community, which again, is negative.

No, it's not. You just admitted that it isn't, and that these concerns are just being used as a pretext to challenge AI.

[davkan]

> Again, there are no rules mandating positive ones, and even if that mindset motivates some people, it is not and never has been actionable in its own right.

I never said there was??

> No, it's not. You just admitted that it isn't, and that these concerns are just being used as a pretext to challenge AI.e

I did not. I said the online AI fervor brings eyeballs to local datacenter projects and once people are aware of these projects they are against them because of the negative impacts to their community not simply because they are against AI if they even are. In fact many people in Utah are pro AI but against the construction of Stratos simply because it is _bad_for_their_community_.

> Yes, that's exactly the point I'm making: the complaints about exaggerated externalities (and novel arguments like complaining that power consumption per se is somehow an externality) are all contrivances, and nonsubstantive in their own right.

You can say power consumption and resultant increase in costs for residents isn't an "externality", I don't really care. If my power bill goes up by $5 a month then a datacenter is bad for me and my community and I don't want it on my grid. You can say I don't have the right to stop construction and they have the free ability to build what they want and buy any power they want from the power company, I don't care. I have to power to use my government to stop the construction of something through whatever means are available to it or me.

The reality we live in is that these datacenter projects require buy-in from the states and municipalities. These projects almost universally require discretionary approval from governing bodies to some degree. That may be regarding tax incentives necessary for profitability or zoning or a myriad of other red tapes. Many of those governments are responsive to the people and the people _do_not_want_ datacenters in their community.

You can say they only don't want it because of AI fearmongering mindrot, I don't agree. I think it's because once people are aware of the projects and understand the facts they recognize datacenters are only to the detriment their community and I don't care to argue that further with you on their motivations. Regardless of their motives they are free to use their government to block datacenter construction by any legal means.

[Gormo]

> I never said there was??

You distinguished data centers from other types of facilities on the basis of those other facilities having external effects that are "essential to a community", and then used that distinction as a basis for arguing that it's acceptable to restrict the construction of data centers.

Arguing that it's OK to restrict activities because they aren't generating positive externalities is equivalent to arguing for rules that mandate positive externalities.

> I said the online AI fervor brings eyeballs to local datacenter projects and once people are aware of these projects they are against them because of the negative impacts to their community not simply because they are against AI if they even are. In fact many people in Utah are pro AI but against the construction of Stratos simply because it is _bad_for_their_community_.

That seems a little dubious to me, since I'd expect people who are against large commercial developments regardless of how they're being used to already be aware of proposed development projects without having to learn of them via online AI hype. The sorts of NIMBY-minded folks you're talking about are the sort that routinely monitor municipal governance, and especially things like building permit issuances, zoning board discussions, etc.

My suspicion is that the people you're talking about here are anti-AI activists trying to make a "parallel construction" argument to advance their position.

> Many of those governments are responsive to the people and the people _do_not_want_ datacenters in their community.

This doesn't add up. New data centers are being built regularly, so it's not possible for all of the premises of your argument ("data centers require government approval", "governments are responsive to the people", "the people are opposed to data center construction") to be true, since data centers would not be constructed if they were. At least one of these premises must be false, and I think there's a strong possibility that all three may be false.