Keep kind lud’s name out your damn mouth. Failure to understand history, doomed to repeat.

> I wonder if they think data centers didn't exist before 2025

They of course call them “hyperscalers” because they’re the same size as all the other things. /s

Ah yes. If you don’t buy during the surge you’ll have to pay the price later when costs have come down. Makes sense.

False equivalencies, you can be against ai and imperialism and ads. Go make those maps if you think they’re problems, otherwise you’re just shutting someone down for caring about something that impacts them but you don’t care about

It's odd that we don't see this kind of ra.. resistance against much worse evils that have been objectively fucking everyone up for far far longer.

Can you be more specific? There has been opposition against most things.

AI is also the new thing currently being forced on basically every person and upending society. It shouldn't be surprising it's on the forefront of people's minds or that they might want to try to prevent it.

Yeah, only think about your job that’s gonna go away anyways. Zero global perspective or long-term thinking.

The future is inevitable, says people working tirelessly to make a specific future happen.

It’s better than your suggested future where Asia shoots off into orbit because we give up the race so you can have your dev job for a few more months.

What’s the difference, either fantasy scenario - yours or your straw-man of mine - ends with no jobs and us fighting over the scraps the oligarch class toss us.

You two are close to having a class solidarity moment

My guess though is one of you is a more temporarily embarrassed millionaire than the other so it won’t happen

If water is the problem then why are we ignoring how much water beef needs? If we measure per person use it is hundreds times more than data center usage in comparison if we measure in per person consumption

Right, see, again, giving away the game. It's not about the water (if it was, the objection would be easy to dismiss). Everything is downstream of a populist argument against AI progress.

The loss of income of people displaced by AI may end up eating less meat to survive.

Is this a serious comment? No one, in an environmental discussion, ignores how much water beef needs. It’s a central part of most vegan/vegetarian commentary.

But this is a conversation about data centers. It would be great if you had the capability of staying even vaguely on topic instead of spinning off into “what about” bullshit.

1. Beef uses trillions of gallons of water per year, while data centers use billions - data center water use is nowhere remotely as much as beef.

2. Despite beef using far more water, is it getting anywhere remotely as much coverage as data center water use?

3. Senators like Sanders proposed stopping data center construction nationwide - have senators proposed similar nationwide bans for beef?

You can go ahead and try to do that. Politically, to say its a DOA bill, is the understatement of the century. Also, water is renewable. This entire discussion is absurd and scientifically illiterate. There is a reason why nobody says, "party of science" anymore.

> Also, water is renewable.

Tell that to the aquafers we’re emptying that won’t refill for generations.

Water is renewable, but not necessarily in the right place or in timely manner.

Using treated potable water to cool servers is just taxpayers subsidizing server cooling.

Beef uses water, but you can eat beef.

Ai uses water, but you can’t eat ai.

Can you see the difference?

>> If water is the problem then why are we ignoring how much water beef needs? If we measure per person use it is hundreds times more than data center usage

> Ai uses water, but you can’t eat ai.

Almost all other foods don't use trillions of gallons of water like beef does. If someone's goal was to reduce water use, then shouldn't they be making at least as much noise about the non-necessary thing using far more water compared to data center's billions, not trillions, of gallons?

Point I am making is if we need to tackle the water issue then we need to do it via 80/20 rule, focus on the elephant in the room first. Data centers are a fly in a room with an elephant in this case.

Was anyone proposing to eat AI? Was anyone proposing to do data processing with a pot roast?

Why is the difference in what specific use case the consumers of these products are serving with them one that's relevant to the discussion?

No, that logic does not make any sense whatsoever.

Not inherently they don’t.

Inherently, they don't.

The way they are operated, they do.

I can eat animals off a feedlot. I can’t eat anything that comes out of an ai data center.

Why are you ok with spending $100 on groceries but not $100 on poison?

Software running modern farming runs in datacenters. For example, AI checking images from drones monitoring health of crops, then directing drones with treatment.

Software ate the world, now the world eats software.

Nah. Not buying it. Nobody needs ai checking or drone-based pesticide dispersal. Sure maybe those tech are used here and there, but not widespread enough to say that I am eating stuff that only exists because of datacenters that haven’t been built yet. In top of that you can run all the image processing you need on a $500 consumer GPU, and afaik crop dusting drones are human operated for the most part

To document the impacts and organize people against the harms.

Employees being loyal and well paid are in the company’s interests.

And “the right to protect its interests” doesn’t actually include firing people for organizing. That’s illegal most places.

These employees trying to organize seem to be ignoring that they don't actually provide the majority of the value that Wikipedia benefits from, volunteers do.

What a horrible take.

The janitor deserves to be paid well, work in safe conditions, and have stable hours. They may not provide “the majority of the value” but without them work would grind to a halt.

Same applies to every other job. If it needs to be done, then it should be treated with respect and dignity.

I agree that everyone deserves to be paid according to their contribution, and have their employer follow all relevant laws. I am not aware of anyone being murdered, enslaved, or even tortured by the Foundation. This group seems to be trying to ‘cash in’ on Wikipedia’s AI windfall, and I think that will cause long-term damage to the organization.

So, what you’re saying is you believe the bar for starting a union is being murdered, tortured, or enslaved?

Why?

Why would the bar not be: we feel our contributions are undervalued. Because that’s what you’re calling a “cash in” attempt.

If they made the company work up to this point, and the company got a windfall because of its position, why do they not deserve a piece of that windfall?

>”So, what you’re saying is you believe the bar for starting a union is being murdered, tortured, or enslaved?”

No, I’m not saying that, and if I were, I’d clearly state it.

The person writing the article isn’t in the wiki union.

So… i guess anytime someone else describes your demands as reasonable, they’re unreasonable?