And other key insights about the data center protest movement. Plus, Bernie Sanders' AI sovereign wealth fund proposal, Ted Chiang's argument against AI consciousness, and much more.
Sanders proposal is brilliant in my book given the public's united hostility against AI. This might be the only feasible means for real redistribution of wealth.
I hope plenty of people in New Zealand read this before our appalling government gives away all the cheap Manopori electricity and water to a data centre and again returning nothing to NZ.
Ireland has a pretty sizable data centre problem, as they currently consume 22% of electricity generated here, (next largest globally is reportedly Singapore at 7%). While this has become a hot topic recently there has not been any real success at halting this expansion. The main reason for this is that the government is very reluctant to stand up in any way to Big Tech, given that Apple, Microsoft, Meta and Alphabet are large employers here, and maybe more importantly their tax avoidance schemes fund much of our tax base. The Irish government has also been a reliable partner when it comes to (not) enforcing things like the EU's Digital Services Act. Of all the people to be on hock to, we had to pick the tech bros.
By that math, the resistance rate for datacentres in Beverly Hills is 0%. Not a single person resisted the installation of a datacentre in Beverly Hills. Therefore, we must conclude that the ultra rich love having datacentres next to their mansions.
What's that? 0 datacentres were proposed in Beverly Hills? That doesn't matter. The math is simple. Resistance rate is the number of datacentres resisted for a certain group divided by the total number of datacentres proposed nationwide.
Now, you might think that a more useful metric would be the number of datacentres proposed for a certain group divided not by the total number of datacentres proposed nationwide, but by the number proposed for that group. In that case, if there were 14 datacentres proposed in areas where median income was in the upper quartile and all 14 were resisted, the resistance rate would be 100%, not 3.8%.
I wonder how these data centers map onto Republican-led congressional districts as well what the demographics of these areas are. Because it seems to me that the real story is, poor white conservatives are upset that their areas are suddenly being treated like how Black areas, often created and populated by redlining, have long been treated: as industrial dumping grounds so the white areas won't get grime on their picket fences.
Case in point: Vineland, NJ, which voted for Trump in 2024, and which had a data center secretly forced on them recently, much to the locals' displeasure. Naturally, their Republican rep, Jeff Van Drew, says he can do nothing, but he has been given "assurances." The local Republican pols are naturally upset that they are being questioned at all.
I think you’re gesturing toward a few important points, though I wasn’t able to acquire data to look into them.
On poor whites: To extend your point—possibly further than you’d take it, but perhaps not—poor whites and their communities have kind of always been America’s ‘backup dumping ground.’ Poor whites who don’t realize this is how they’re treated tended disproportionately to support the Democratic party in the 19th century, the Republican party in the 20th century, and the two-party system in the 21st century. I think an analysis of data center resistance race demnographics would be hard to interpret since Black neighborhoods are already dealing with highways, powerplants, food deserts, pharmacy deserts, etc.
On district political leanings: The really good data here are plagued by two problems—not unrelated to each other, and both associated scientific and ethical concerns. For one thing, the good data on voter registration is all proprietary (and expensive). The other is that, even if you get your hands on those data, joining them to public data is a giant geocomputational pain in the ass: Given the long history of gerrymandering in this country, congressional districts look nothing like pretty much any (otherwise) meaningful geographies for which data are available.
@Geoff Holtzman Would it be possible to map the racial demographics and population density of where data centers are being proposed and resisted though? (Working on a piece around this…) Like are they being equally cited (and resisted) in white rural areas and Black urban ones (with the important caveat you describe), Black rural ones, multiracial urban, etc. I’m curious about the degree to which pre-existing organizing infrastructure is at play here… Right now, it seems like these are mostly organic and completely grassroots in rural spaces, but a bit more coordinated in urban places where there is already a movement ecosystem. But that is anecdata, not hard data🤷🏻♀️
It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first.
What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing.
I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.
My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461, and here is a video of Jeff Krichmar talking about some of the Darwin automata, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Uh9phc1Ow
“THAT SAID, at the risk of my luddite bona fides, I’ll say that I don’t actually hate the proposal itself.”
Luddites rebel against the autocratic imposition of a potentially disruptive technology, right, and not necessarily against the technology itself?
With a society that runs on the scales ours does, democratic say in the direction of AI might just have to come in the form of public ownership along the lines Sanders proposes, ownership being the only voice big shareholder-capitalism hears.
It’s not how I wish things were — I recoil from having to deal with bigness — but alas.
The 5:1 resistance ratio may point to something bigger than data centers.
For years, AI governance has been discussed primarily as a problem of regulating models. But the moment AI becomes physical infrastructure, governance shifts from Silicon Valley and Washington to neighborhoods, utility boards, and city councils.
The infrastructure layer is where AI stops being an intelligence problem and starts becoming a power problem.
As someone who believes that AI should be snuffed out altogether, as its downsides, in any one of a number of areas, far outweigh any potential "benefits", it seems to me that granting everyone "stock" in it would only encourage it's growth! - "hey, the more profitable these companies get, the more money I get! OK, I lost my job, I have been deskilled, but who cares, look at the $$$! So don't do anything that might impede its progress - because now i have a stake in it!'
Sanders proposal is brilliant in my book given the public's united hostility against AI. This might be the only feasible means for real redistribution of wealth.
I like it too, just not the framing!
The reality is that wealth redistribution will not benefit those you think. It will be channeled upwards, not downwards.
I hope plenty of people in New Zealand read this before our appalling government gives away all the cheap Manopori electricity and water to a data centre and again returning nothing to NZ.
Ireland has a pretty sizable data centre problem, as they currently consume 22% of electricity generated here, (next largest globally is reportedly Singapore at 7%). While this has become a hot topic recently there has not been any real success at halting this expansion. The main reason for this is that the government is very reluctant to stand up in any way to Big Tech, given that Apple, Microsoft, Meta and Alphabet are large employers here, and maybe more importantly their tax avoidance schemes fund much of our tax base. The Irish government has also been a reliable partner when it comes to (not) enforcing things like the EU's Digital Services Act. Of all the people to be on hock to, we had to pick the tech bros.
By that math, the resistance rate for datacentres in Beverly Hills is 0%. Not a single person resisted the installation of a datacentre in Beverly Hills. Therefore, we must conclude that the ultra rich love having datacentres next to their mansions.
What's that? 0 datacentres were proposed in Beverly Hills? That doesn't matter. The math is simple. Resistance rate is the number of datacentres resisted for a certain group divided by the total number of datacentres proposed nationwide.
Now, you might think that a more useful metric would be the number of datacentres proposed for a certain group divided not by the total number of datacentres proposed nationwide, but by the number proposed for that group. In that case, if there were 14 datacentres proposed in areas where median income was in the upper quartile and all 14 were resisted, the resistance rate would be 100%, not 3.8%.
I wonder how these data centers map onto Republican-led congressional districts as well what the demographics of these areas are. Because it seems to me that the real story is, poor white conservatives are upset that their areas are suddenly being treated like how Black areas, often created and populated by redlining, have long been treated: as industrial dumping grounds so the white areas won't get grime on their picket fences.
(Cf. The four data centers being forced on Jackson, Mississippi, which is 82% Black: https://www.wlbt.com/2026/04/20/jackson-city-councilman-seeking-temporary-moratorium-data-centers.).
Case in point: Vineland, NJ, which voted for Trump in 2024, and which had a data center secretly forced on them recently, much to the locals' displeasure. Naturally, their Republican rep, Jeff Van Drew, says he can do nothing, but he has been given "assurances." The local Republican pols are naturally upset that they are being questioned at all.
https://nj1015.com/vineland-nj-data-center-concerns/
Honestly, I hope they enjoy their sound-induced anxiety and headaches.
I think you’re gesturing toward a few important points, though I wasn’t able to acquire data to look into them.
On poor whites: To extend your point—possibly further than you’d take it, but perhaps not—poor whites and their communities have kind of always been America’s ‘backup dumping ground.’ Poor whites who don’t realize this is how they’re treated tended disproportionately to support the Democratic party in the 19th century, the Republican party in the 20th century, and the two-party system in the 21st century. I think an analysis of data center resistance race demnographics would be hard to interpret since Black neighborhoods are already dealing with highways, powerplants, food deserts, pharmacy deserts, etc.
On district political leanings: The really good data here are plagued by two problems—not unrelated to each other, and both associated scientific and ethical concerns. For one thing, the good data on voter registration is all proprietary (and expensive). The other is that, even if you get your hands on those data, joining them to public data is a giant geocomputational pain in the ass: Given the long history of gerrymandering in this country, congressional districts look nothing like pretty much any (otherwise) meaningful geographies for which data are available.
@Geoff Holtzman Would it be possible to map the racial demographics and population density of where data centers are being proposed and resisted though? (Working on a piece around this…) Like are they being equally cited (and resisted) in white rural areas and Black urban ones (with the important caveat you describe), Black rural ones, multiracial urban, etc. I’m curious about the degree to which pre-existing organizing infrastructure is at play here… Right now, it seems like these are mostly organic and completely grassroots in rural spaces, but a bit more coordinated in urban places where there is already a movement ecosystem. But that is anecdata, not hard data🤷🏻♀️
Trump is AI… a fraud.
It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first.
What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing.
I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.
My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461, and here is a video of Jeff Krichmar talking about some of the Darwin automata, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Uh9phc1Ow
“THAT SAID, at the risk of my luddite bona fides, I’ll say that I don’t actually hate the proposal itself.”
Luddites rebel against the autocratic imposition of a potentially disruptive technology, right, and not necessarily against the technology itself?
With a society that runs on the scales ours does, democratic say in the direction of AI might just have to come in the form of public ownership along the lines Sanders proposes, ownership being the only voice big shareholder-capitalism hears.
It’s not how I wish things were — I recoil from having to deal with bigness — but alas.
The 5:1 resistance ratio may point to something bigger than data centers.
For years, AI governance has been discussed primarily as a problem of regulating models. But the moment AI becomes physical infrastructure, governance shifts from Silicon Valley and Washington to neighborhoods, utility boards, and city councils.
The infrastructure layer is where AI stops being an intelligence problem and starts becoming a power problem.
As someone who believes that AI should be snuffed out altogether, as its downsides, in any one of a number of areas, far outweigh any potential "benefits", it seems to me that granting everyone "stock" in it would only encourage it's growth! - "hey, the more profitable these companies get, the more money I get! OK, I lost my job, I have been deskilled, but who cares, look at the $$$! So don't do anything that might impede its progress - because now i have a stake in it!'
What am I missing here?
I was wondering the same!
1) they’re conspiratorial, some of the late-comers to the anti-DC movement are clearly anti-5G types
2) the local politicians aren’t talented enough to frame a DC as enabling a property tax cut