Big tech has consistently valued profit and growth above good stewardship; the onus is entirely on OpenAI to demonstrate that any of these claims aren't fluff with the projects that are already greenlit. When OpenAI presents plans to the communities prior to/alongside city counsels and drops the NDAs then there will be merit to this but our expectations should be somewhere between "super deep kola borehole" and "upper mantle".
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.
No, it's frequently used in infrastructure discussions as well, eg. high speed rail or power transmission lines.
The only way to do good is to first do all the bad and consolidate power, so you can then use all that power to do good, pinkie promise!
So I see EA as a popular one of those stories. One that people can reinforce. Makes the world simpler than it actually is: climb the ladder, make money at whatever cost, there's no harm that you can do that can't be offset by giving it all away at the end. It is a vast over simplification and is inconsistent logic. If they used their own logic then they'd recognize helping people now also results in compounding effects. You fix the problems now, while they are small and manageable, rather than kicking the can down the road. Maintenance is a lot easier and cheaper than repair. But it also requires us to be nuanced and reflect on ourselves [0]
[0] there seems to be a great irony that those leading these big AI companies are not themselves able to deeply reflect on their own actions, yet ask the AI to. How can you design something that you aren't intimately familiar with?
> OpenAI will pay our own way and protect residential and small-business customers [...] OpenAI will work to support new power generation in Texas
Notice how this very intentionally doesn't say they will work to support generating as much or more power than they will use? Because if they could do that, they would just generate their own power. It doesn't matter if they "pay their own way", they are now competing with households.
Same with water, all of these projects want to leech on existing systems because they don't even want to entertain developing their own systems.
However, having worked inside Texas DCs for a long time now, I think it's just the burst that's the issue, not the concepts. Sadly they'll share our resources, but I think they should pay a premium on their energy compared to residential (but it's hard to reconcile this with other commercial ventures that do not).
> We will minimize water consumption and prioritize efficient cooling technologies, including closed-loop systems.
> We will work with local communities and water providers to ensure our projects are responsibly planned around available resources
I can promise you that I'll do everything to consider the needs and wants of others.
But I won't promise to take actions that take those wants or needs into account, much less even actually consider them.
The only plausible way to recoup 1T is to automate large swaths of human jobs so that the companies stop spending money on humans, and instead give money to them. This is probably why the public doesn’t want AI, because AI in the rules of current society is perfectly designed to disempower and ruin humans, but is not actually capable enough to ruin humans in a state of nature.
Large massive data-centers that makes this economics work is not actually a fact of life, in a less stable country they’re actually a liability. If a countries technical prowess comes from a data center then an adversary just needs to bomb it to knee cap that country. On the other hand, if a companies technical prowess comes from a thousands of well trained humans, well that’s actually not easy to get rid of. They’re not stationary, they’re adaptable, they can pick up new skills quicker and cheaper. Any king would much rather invest in humans and not AI.
But in a country like US, where it’s hard to even imagine such instability, AI is perfect at outcompeting humans and ruining them short term, and ruining the country long term. No wonder, this seems to be turning out to become the most negative reaction the public has ever had to the advent of new transformative technology. Unfortunately I don’t think it will work, the AI companies are just going to steamroll them, steal their jobs and dignity and then put them on UBI and pay themselves on the back as if they did a good thing.
You may be too optimistic.
Never, ever will they do that. It’s the same bullshit like Musk telling people not to save for retirement. He can distribute his stock by now but instead he is grabbing on to more money.
If there will be UBI, it will be the absolute minimum to not starve. Basically the same as welfare now. No way they are going to share the wealth.
The best option is to get everyone on the same page about AI benefits and hazards, and not be unrealistic about the way AI could shape up as a transformative element of human society.
Look at how the TikTok kids (who went nuts for the Palestinians) don't give a crud about the Cubans.
At the same time, full blown humanitarian disasters, like the one that hit the Rohingya in Myanmar, people that were being thrown in pit and burned alive in the thousands, are completely unknown to the average adult in the west.
Anyway, here's actual evidence of elected officials contradicting your anecdotal narrative:
https://apnews.com/article/cuba-embargo-congress-pocan-leger...
I'm not saying empathy is a Chinese psyop. The empathy is real. But empathy requires awareness - and awareness IS controlled by the algorithm.
As far as I’m aware, children aren’t being shot in the head and forcibly starved by an occupying force in Cuba. But to say that folks don’t care is clearly inaccurate.
"Winning" in this context is simply slowing down permitting and construction until the capital bubble pops, at which point a great deal of these projects simply evaporate. And the bubble will pop eventually.
'Living in Hell': Data Center Neighbors Grapple With Noise, Air Pollution - https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2026-04-2... - April 28th, 2026
Measuring the Impact of Data Centers in the United States Economy: Monetary Damage from Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - https://www.nber.org/papers/w35100 | https://doi.org/10.3386/w35100
> This paper quantifies the environmental externalities associated with electricity consumption by data centers in the United States, focusing on damages from local air pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Using facility-level data for approximately 2,800 operational data centers in 2025, combined with electricity grid characteristics and emissions data, the analysis estimates pollution impacts through the AP4 integrated assessment model and applies the social cost of carbon for GHG valuation. Results indicate that data centers consume roughly 250 TWh of electricity—about 5–6% of U.S. generation—and generate approximately $25 billion in gross external damages (GED), with a range of $10–$33 billion. These damages are highly geographically concentrated, with Texas and Virginia accounting for 30% of the national total. While GED comprises about 5% of industry GDP, this ratio varies widely across states, exceeding GDP in some regions. Planned data center expansion could increase electricity demand and associated damages by up to 85% in the near term. Despite these environmental costs, preliminary comparisons suggest that the damages attributable to AI-related energy use are small relative to potential productivity gains. [My note: potential gains]
Health implications of the rapid rise of data centers in Virginia: an exploratory assessment - https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/climate/articles/10.338... | https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2026.1648912
Virginia mostly used by-right zoning, which treated data centers like just another office block. The result is linked below. Those cranes in the back of photo 2 are building yet another data center. Loudoun recently changed the zoning laws to end by-right development of data centers, but it's a bit too little, too late. Yes, some of those homes predate the data centers. Yes, not all of them - the county has allowed this mixed development for 20+ years now.
1 - https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/GettyIm...
2 - https://oxfordamerican.org/media/pages/oa-now/how-data-cente...
Data Center Disputes Fuel 33 Recall Efforts, Ballotpedia Finds - https://ballotpedia.org/Press_release_Data_Center_Disputes_F... - July 7th, 2026
Utah Senate President Loses Primary After Data Center Backlash - https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/24/us/j-stuart-adams-utah-se... | https://archive.today/MMot6 - June 24th, 2026
The datacenter controversy has nothing to do with caring about the environment and is a complete scam that preys on low-information voters. It is a product of outside Chinese money being funneled into US politics to hobble the US in Artificial Intelligence.
Or this could be Russian propaganda, to manipulate US opinion against China in this case. What are your sources?
Without evidence to the contrary, the prevailing narrative is more likely correct- people have been told by the tech titans that AI will change everything and they'll loose their jobs, so they don't like it.
In fact, whoever is saying the Chinese are tricking Americans may be trying to get more people to support US big-tech's AI build-out (or stock market bubble) by appealing to nationlism - that the Chinese will get us. A double cross.
Seems like something that ought to be addressed as well, and should not be used as a justification for other lousy things.
Please provide citations and evidence for this assertion. As it stands, this is an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
NBER w35194 (Alvarez et al., May 2026) instruments for siting and finds the opposite: +6.2% establishments and +8.2% AGI at 25 years.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w35194/w351...
Are you arguing that the leaders of a state, who were elected by the constituents, should not experiment and try make things better? By definition, some experiments will fail.
You can experiment on everyone, or you can experiment at the local level. One is obviously preferable over the other.
Nobody has all the answers.
Oracle's doing something just outside the Milwaukee metro. I'd imagine there are others. Datacenter buildout is wildly unpopular around the Great Lakes, and that's not new. For Wisconsinites specifically, the whole thing has a whiff of Foxconn about it.
For the uninitiated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconn_Valley_Science_and_Tec...
Beyond the construction they employ very little people and bring very little taxes at a gargantuan cost in resources.
The former middle class has entered the chat.
I don’t know much about the impact of their data centers compared to others, but there weren’t many (if any) concrete commitments in this letter. The promises all seem like areas that even an evil corporation could pay lip service to.
If you are just paying the bills and leasing the space, is it really your fault a datacenter some other entity built is sucking the water table of Levelland dry?
If I just use and don't own the data center, then how can I be held accountable for it's impact others?
Assuming OAI is the sole tenant in these facilities, I'd say we are approaching 100% control.
Just like it supported 'Open AI'?
when i go home and hear about this i'm conflicted. it brings short term economic prosperity. what's the cost if there's no commitment to clean energy in reality
the developers on these projects will do whatever it takes to simply get the project done
People have legitimate complaints when they are built within audible distance of housing.
"Abbott is asking the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas to ensure data center developers provide information on tax breaks they will receive; power use and generation; water use and cooling operations; efforts to reduce impacts on local communities; and ownership of the facility. Any projects that fail Abbott’s ordered “comprehensive verification and audit” should be denied connection to the grid, the governor said."
https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-comp...
"“Our top priority is to protect Texans’ safety and quality of life,” said Governor Abbott. “Any project that fails to comply with the requirements set forth by the PUCT and ERCOT, and by state law, must be denied connection to the Texas grid. Simply put, Texans must come first.”"
https://environmentamerica.org/texas/center/media-center/new...
"The Lone Star State generated the equivalent of 37% of its electricity from solar, wind and geothermal power in 2025"
I suspect the success of renewables in Texas has more to do with the bottom line than anything else. They certainly get a lot of badmouthing from people in rural areas. And honestly this is the best possible outcome. The impact of good intentions wavers along with cultural evolution, but it's hard to stop something that just makes financial sense.
Ken Paxton, who is running for Senate and currently serves as attorney general, proudly announced cracking down on "solar scams": https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-...
Plus his campaign site makes no mention of supporting clean energy: https://www.kenpaxton.com/
I will repeat: it's political suicide to run on a platform of clean energy or education in Texas. That does not mean companies are not building clean energy. But politicians will not make it part of their platform during elections.
Oh and it reduced our green house gas emissions. That was the catch.
(I got coal rolled just yesterday, in Tahoe. Who knew that was still a thing…)
https://texas2036.org/news-analysis/gale-force-growth-texas-...
And to which companies would this apply? Only Datacenters? There are other energy intensive industries too, should this also apply to them? And what is the cutoff for that? Does every bigger 21st century company also need to be an electricity company?
It would be less arbitrary if all negative externalities would be taxed (for example, carbon tax or noise pollution tax) and maybe prioritize households on the public grid.
carbon taxes dont work because all they do is make production more expensive, and businesses are always happy to pass on any extra costs to their customers. its the same with noise pollution and water use. the only way to actually stop them is direct regulation.
buying land does not give you the right to do whatever you want with it. stop worshipping property and markets and focus on real problems like limited number of business licenses, exclusivity contracts, long or lifetime post employment terms, weak competition rules and long waiting times at government offices. all of them go against the right to buy what you want, work for anyone who wants to take you or to start a business. thats the real economic freedom that is in danger today.
