Rendered at 23:48:23 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
platinumrad 24 hours ago [-]
Not surprising when Sam keeps on talking about how his AI is going to take your job and Dario counters by saying his AI is going to kill you.
tedd4u 18 hours ago [-]
Not to mention raise your electricity bill, drain your aquifer, make loud noise constantly, and belch diesel exhaust and get even louder as the diesel backup gennies are periodically tested. Maybe you're extra lucky and it has ongoing / indefinite diesel reciprocating or even jet turbine behind-the-meter generation!
By the way, your municipality may have drawn interest by excusing the builder/owner from most property taxes, too, so it won't support your schools and essential services.
cdrnsf 1 days ago [-]
Most Americans would be correct.
greggoB 1 days ago [-]
Tbh I'm surprised it's only 57%, I had thought with all the reporting over the datacenter backlash it would be more like 75%+.
paxy 22 hours ago [-]
I assume the ~33% of the population that still approves of Trump also like datacenters because he said so. And the rest are probably involved in the AI ecosystem somehow.
edmundsauto 18 hours ago [-]
I encourage you to challenge your priors, here. It’s one of the few cross the lines issues, maybe the only other one was making previously free parking require payment.
The trumpworld corruption and cult behavior and elevation of absolute nincompoops notwithstanding. Data center hatred could be what helps heal America after that amazing little blood clot grows up.
nomel 1 days ago [-]
As they answer the poll on the data center hosted website, before ordering delivery by making a data center hosted phone call, with the driver getting to their house via datacenter hosted mapping service. The driver hands them their food along with a small Amazon delivery box that was waiting on their porch, delivered via the work of many data centers. They then go enjoy a streaming movie as they eat their dinner, after telling Alexa to dim the lights, and to order more napkins.
techblueberry 1 days ago [-]
I dont have an Alexa.
and maybe what I’m taking away from your post is too many god damned things rely on a datacenter.
techgnosis 1 days ago [-]
"And yet...you are part of society. Interesting..."
nomel 1 days ago [-]
Sorry, my point was that I don't think the average person understands they're constantly making use of data centers.
cdrnsf 1 days ago [-]
Perhaps not but there's a vast difference between the infrastructure that had been used prior to the current boom in hyperscalers. If I had to choose between DoorDash and breathing the exhaust generated by 30+ gas generators I know what I'd pick.
nomel 3 hours ago [-]
> exhaust generated by 30+ gas generators
The utility monopolies are partly/mostly to blame for this. Their rates have become so disconnected from reality that it's cheaper to install your own power generation. They've all been posting record profits, up 50% where I am, in the last 5 years, as rates continue to increase.
I'm sure the utility companies are ecstatic how the blame as been put squarely on data centers.
cowlevel 2 hours ago [-]
Maybe utility power is more expensive because it has to pay for pollution mitigation?
nomel 2 hours ago [-]
Maybe they shouldn't be profiting so heavily if that's the case?
But yes, they say it's green energy requirements/expansion. But, they're also very good at making excuses, including when they're old equipment erases whole towns due to fires they started, from leaving it all unmaintained to help with those record profits.
reasonableklout 20 hours ago [-]
Yup. The headline is also about opposing more datacenters. The AI datacenter boom is now approaching 6% of US GDP and it's not surprising so many are feeling unnerved about the massive footprint of this tech on not only the economy but their physical spaces.
mindslight 20 hours ago [-]
Maybe if they had, they would have opposed them earlier. On the whole, I'd say the surveillance industry has benefited much more from widespread ignorance than it has suffered.
pebble 1 days ago [-]
Doest mean we need so many of them.
simulator5g 22 hours ago [-]
I disagree. There is a huge difference between web host data centers and hyperscale compute data centers. It's disingenuous to use the same term to refer to both of these things. People are mad about the hyperscalers who want to pollute low income neighborhoods with noise and smog. Traditionally, data centers have used grid power, used far less power, and created far less noise than a "compute center".
1 days ago [-]
shimman 1 days ago [-]
Hyper scale data centers are absolutely not the same, and you're making it sound as if people have a real choice when oligarchs control everything.
All I'm getting from your comment is maybe the government should provide public options for payment processors, gig workers, social media, email, and operating systems.
Maybe they should start by nationalizing a few of these companies and provide the benefits to the public instead of the billionaires.
nomel 2 hours ago [-]
> and you're making it sound as if people have a real choice when oligarchs control everything.
No, I'm saying that most people are enjoying the benefits of data centers, without knowing they're contributing to the problem, including hyper scalars, which aren't running idle. The average person is using them indirectly (via media, software, services the use, generated by AI) and directly (go talk to a teen to understand the scale of AI use).
This is the same argument for people being upset that China pollutes so much as they sit on their furniture made with petroleum based plastics, from China, wearing shoes manufactured in China, while typing the message on an iPhone made in China.
Since the awareness is so low, I think a useful question to include in the poll would have been "Do you use AI or data centers?"
And, I don't see how this is related to oligarchs. Without the data centers, all the services would be more expensive. They're a very simple concept: bulk purchased compute components with cheap industrial electric rates.
cowlevel 2 hours ago [-]
Maybe there aren't other options? The "yet you participate in society... curious" meme is the relevant one here.
nomel 2 hours ago [-]
There's a very clear option, that doesn't involve blaming oligarchs, who are rich from people throwing money at them: reduce your standard of living. That's what's drives all these problems. Good luck getting anyone to participate!
cowlevel 2 hours ago [-]
sorry sir let me downgrade my house from three cardboard boxes to two. Oh that's still too many? I guess I can make do with one. Oh? Zero I guess... Oh my standards are still too high? Well then what are the appropriate standards?
bezier-curve 1 days ago [-]
I think for me at least, my main concern with data centers is the energy fueling them and the air pollution. It's not fair to buy up property around residential areas and force portable natural gas turbine emissions into people's lives. We need these powered by renewable energy at minimum.
turpentine 1 days ago [-]
Additionally, I would ask what the economic benefits are.
If they are structured to end up running at a loss and generate almost zero tax revenue (i.e. just payroll tax on a dozen full time staff) on large amounts of revenue, is that good for the people of the city/state/country?
fennecbutt 1 days ago [-]
I've seen interesting points made on this topic. Like how on the whole China/Asia poll more favourably in public perception and adoption of AI.
I'm still skeptical that the source of Western dissent is misinformation campaigns run by said Asiatic bloc, though.
gonzalohm 1 days ago [-]
Have you seen the behavior of all big tech companies in the US for the past few decades?
Gigachad 18 hours ago [-]
Chinese CEOs would be sentenced to death for 1/100th of the things American AI CEOs have done.
American CEOs are almost comic book levels of evil.
i_love_retros 21 hours ago [-]
>Like how on the whole China/Asia poll more favourably in public perception and adoption of AI.
If I was Chinese I'd probably have more faith that AI advances are going to benefit society as a whole than just a few tech billionaires.
As an American, not so much.
thepryz 1 days ago [-]
I'm skeptical that the misinformation campaigns are run by China, et al. but I do believe there are a number of competing interests directly manipulating public perception.
estearum 1 days ago [-]
And surely “the public” doesn’t include “thepryz” though!
i_love_retros 21 hours ago [-]
I've stopped using AI outside of work and its so refreshing. I actually use a search engine again and read web pages written by humans 10 years ago to find information on things. I don't have to read that awful fucking prose that LLMs vomit up or put up with their pathetic sycophancy.
spicyusername 21 hours ago [-]
actually use a search engine again
I like how the search engine, something that also just came into being, is the metric here for "normalcy".
Reminds me of the quote:
Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."
ETH_start 1 days ago [-]
Americans reveal their preferences in their consumer choices. AI is the most rapidly adopted service in human history.
gonzalohm 1 days ago [-]
You can't use a product that you think is bad for society? I use my car everyday even though I would rather not because it's destroying the environment. I don't have other choices though, It's either that or I don't work
pimlottc 1 days ago [-]
When AI is jammed into every product and inserted at the top of ever TV search result, adoption isn’t really a choice
ETH_start 1 days ago [-]
ChatGPT is now used by 1.2 billion people on a monthly basis. This is not an embedded product that people are being forced into. They are navigating to the website to use it.
reasonableklout 20 hours ago [-]
But in many cases people are being forced into it. If you're a student in a college class of 20 where 1 person is using ChatGPT to cheat, you better bet you're going to start cheating too, unless you want to end up lower on the grading curve.
Terr_ 20 hours ago [-]
> Americans reveal their preferences in their consumer choices.
In the same sense that a wounded man cornered by lions might "reveal his preference" to jump off the cliff or be eaten alive.
Beware the pundit who extrapolates from that while blithely ignoring the true preference of "not dying".
22 hours ago [-]
fwlr 18 hours ago [-]
“Prisoners say prisoner’s dilemma is bad yet defection rates have never been higher”
1 days ago [-]
thepryz 1 days ago [-]
Americans, as a whole, lack intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and are easily manipulated by the media. The amount of misinformation on both sides of the AI and data center debate is staggering but stirring up fear drives engagement and revenue so here we are.
add-sub-mul-div 1 days ago [-]
Broadly writing off the opinions of people who don't share your views is the height of incuriosity.
haebom 21 hours ago [-]
hahahahahaha
basedEnc 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
newfriend 1 days ago [-]
Most Americans have an IQ of around 100.
simulator5g 22 hours ago [-]
IQ is a useless metric for intelligence.
7 hours ago [-]
gonzalohm 1 days ago [-]
Yet for this one they seem to be smarter than the rest
eli_gottlieb 1 days ago [-]
Yes, 100 is by definition the population mean of IQ.
ravenstine 1 days ago [-]
They say it's bad for society, but look at what they choose to consume.
turpentine 23 hours ago [-]
Appeal to hypocrisy is not a valid refutation.
ravenstine 18 hours ago [-]
Sure it is.
customguy 12 hours ago [-]
Alright then: most of criticism of the poll seems to written by charmless man children socialized by Minecraft mob farms. What they write only occurs in forums because they wouldn't say it to a person if they even can make eye contact, while what they complain about real people also talk about in real life with the real people who like and respect them, on top of saying it online.
ravenstine 1 hours ago [-]
They asserted something without an explanation, I responded with my position without an explanation, so I don't get what your problem is. It's not self-evident that pointing out hypocrisy isn't a valid refutation; if it were then I wouldn't have made the original comment. How would you even know that I'm a man? Maybe you looked me up, but I kinda doubt it.
1 hours ago [-]
Der_Einzige 20 hours ago [-]
Yes it is.
goatlover 19 hours ago [-]
In what way?
AngryData 20 hours ago [-]
Sounds like you are kind of telling on yourself because nobody I hang around with consumes AI content.
ravenstine 18 hours ago [-]
So no one you know uses TikTok, YouTube, or Instagram?
AngryData 7 hours ago [-]
A few use youtube, none of them watch ai content on it.
What kind of ai content do you think people are watching?
ravenstine 56 minutes ago [-]
I mean, it'd certainly be impressive if they manage to avoid all AI content and not respond to it. If that's really how careful your friends/family are, then props to them. I'm not trying to be combative.
> What kind of ai content do you think people are watching?
I can't think of a platform that isn't showering users with AI content no matter how much content blocking and history-disabling one does. It's at least half of everything that gets injected into feeds, especially on platforms like Instagram, and while there are many people who can recognize AI slop, enough of them continue engaging with it that it's clearly being incentivized. There are plenty of otherwise smart people I know who can't distinguish all of it from reality. Older people are especially susceptible. If you know any baby boomers who regularly use Facebook, they're almost certainly falling for AI slop all the time even if they think they're savvy enough to recognize all of it.
Don't take this the wrong way, but your phrasing of that question makes me wonder whether we're talking about two different things or if your experience with people's habits happens to be radically different from what I've seen as normative. I guess it's possible you wouldn't know what kind of AI content people tend to be watching if you've managed to distance yourself from it that much.
To answer your question now that I've rambled, tons of things are AI generated. Animal videos, dancing videos, tutorials, news, podcasts, music, etc.
Could I be wrong? Yeah, sure. My experience tells me the following:
- The vast majority of people claim to hate AI slop.
- Most people think they can reliably recognize AI slop.
- Almost everyone is getting fooled by AI in some form form at some frequency.
- AI slop almost can't be avoided without only following certain creators or content discovery, and even then it's not completely avoidable.
- I've been duped by AI slop occasionally, and I'm the guy who used to have to inform people all the time that viral videos were faking things with CGI (my family has a history in the entertainment business).
- At least half of people are more upset by the fact someone is breaking their belief in content being real than by the fact that the content intentionally fooled them.
- Most people aren't significantly changing their media consumption habits in response to AI slop.
That's why I am not particularly interested in what the average American thinks about AI. It's about as insightful as asking a woman about dating advice for men. If people overwhelmingly think AI is bad for society, then the answer would be for them to stop consuming it, yet they still do, and there's really no excuse for them to do so if they really think it's that bad.
up2isomorphism 1 days ago [-]
It is not contradictory at all. If your neighbor has a gun you probably buy a gun too in fact probably a bigger one.
ETH_start 1 days ago [-]
This is a tool for creation. So if it's giving one party a competitive advantage over another, that suggests it gives people creative powers. This is very much unlike a weapon where another party having a more effective weapon imposes only negative costs on you. Another party having more creative powers has significant positive externalities that benefit you.
reasonableklout 20 hours ago [-]
I don't think you understand the value that people actually look for in creative media.
First, people seek authenticity. In written content, people want to know there is a real human author thinking about every word, and in photos, people do not want to be deceived by deepfakes. It's much harder to tell in a world of AI slop, hence the rise of apps like Pangram. This is a significant negative externality.
Second, people who invest their time learning creative fields seek recognition for all the hard work they have put in. Now their skills are devalued, again because of slop. This is another negative externality.
Having more pictures and videos is nice in some ways but your head is in the sand if you think it's all roses.
ETH_start 5 hours ago [-]
My initial statement might not have been clear: when I use the word creative, I do not mean it in this narrow sense of creative arts. I meant in a sense of creation, producing valuable goods and services for others.
Even if we're talking about creative arts, if people cannot tell the difference between AI-generated content and human-generated content, then how are they being harmed by the AI-generated creative content?
Assuming they value them equally and they prefer to have more content, AI is strictly a positive for people.
reasonableklout 3 hours ago [-]
It harms people in any area that values authenticity because it creates a market for lemons. People will get halfway through a substack post before they realize there is no human behind the words. Again, this is why apps like Pangram are becoming popular. The end result is that people end up paying a tax to find the same value as before.
"Strictly a positive" is also a strange choice of words when the technology is ripping out the livelihoods of so many creators. I would accept "it has tradeoffs, but is a net positive over the long run". But the former is objectively false.
Henchman21 1 days ago [-]
When the only choices you can afford are _hot garbage_, it starts to seem like the game is rigged against you.
Art9681 23 hours ago [-]
I get these surveys in the mail and promptly toss them in the garbage. The people willing to spend their precious time on them are probably the ones whose opinions matter the least.
I encourage you to read "About the Study".
"Ipsos conducted sampling, interviewing and tabulation for the survey using the KnowledgePanel, a nationwide survey panel designed to be representative of the U.S. adult population. KnowledgePanel members are recruited through probability sampling methods using address-based sampling. Panel members who do not have internet access are provided with a tablet and internet service. KnowledgePanel members receive a per survey incentive, usually the equivalent of $1 (though for some it is $2) in points that can be redeemed for cash or prizes."
goatlover 19 hours ago [-]
Their votes will count the same as yours.
ergl 14 hours ago [-]
> The people willing to spend their precious time on them are probably the ones whose opinions matter the least.
Yeah, the people who disagree with you are never worth listening to. (/s)
By the way, your municipality may have drawn interest by excusing the builder/owner from most property taxes, too, so it won't support your schools and essential services.
The trumpworld corruption and cult behavior and elevation of absolute nincompoops notwithstanding. Data center hatred could be what helps heal America after that amazing little blood clot grows up.
and maybe what I’m taking away from your post is too many god damned things rely on a datacenter.
The utility monopolies are partly/mostly to blame for this. Their rates have become so disconnected from reality that it's cheaper to install your own power generation. They've all been posting record profits, up 50% where I am, in the last 5 years, as rates continue to increase.
I'm sure the utility companies are ecstatic how the blame as been put squarely on data centers.
But yes, they say it's green energy requirements/expansion. But, they're also very good at making excuses, including when they're old equipment erases whole towns due to fires they started, from leaving it all unmaintained to help with those record profits.
All I'm getting from your comment is maybe the government should provide public options for payment processors, gig workers, social media, email, and operating systems.
Maybe they should start by nationalizing a few of these companies and provide the benefits to the public instead of the billionaires.
No, I'm saying that most people are enjoying the benefits of data centers, without knowing they're contributing to the problem, including hyper scalars, which aren't running idle. The average person is using them indirectly (via media, software, services the use, generated by AI) and directly (go talk to a teen to understand the scale of AI use).
This is the same argument for people being upset that China pollutes so much as they sit on their furniture made with petroleum based plastics, from China, wearing shoes manufactured in China, while typing the message on an iPhone made in China.
Since the awareness is so low, I think a useful question to include in the poll would have been "Do you use AI or data centers?"
And, I don't see how this is related to oligarchs. Without the data centers, all the services would be more expensive. They're a very simple concept: bulk purchased compute components with cheap industrial electric rates.
If they are structured to end up running at a loss and generate almost zero tax revenue (i.e. just payroll tax on a dozen full time staff) on large amounts of revenue, is that good for the people of the city/state/country?
I'm still skeptical that the source of Western dissent is misinformation campaigns run by said Asiatic bloc, though.
American CEOs are almost comic book levels of evil.
If I was Chinese I'd probably have more faith that AI advances are going to benefit society as a whole than just a few tech billionaires.
As an American, not so much.
Reminds me of the quote:
In the same sense that a wounded man cornered by lions might "reveal his preference" to jump off the cliff or be eaten alive.
Beware the pundit who extrapolates from that while blithely ignoring the true preference of "not dying".
What kind of ai content do you think people are watching?
> What kind of ai content do you think people are watching?
I can't think of a platform that isn't showering users with AI content no matter how much content blocking and history-disabling one does. It's at least half of everything that gets injected into feeds, especially on platforms like Instagram, and while there are many people who can recognize AI slop, enough of them continue engaging with it that it's clearly being incentivized. There are plenty of otherwise smart people I know who can't distinguish all of it from reality. Older people are especially susceptible. If you know any baby boomers who regularly use Facebook, they're almost certainly falling for AI slop all the time even if they think they're savvy enough to recognize all of it.
Don't take this the wrong way, but your phrasing of that question makes me wonder whether we're talking about two different things or if your experience with people's habits happens to be radically different from what I've seen as normative. I guess it's possible you wouldn't know what kind of AI content people tend to be watching if you've managed to distance yourself from it that much.
To answer your question now that I've rambled, tons of things are AI generated. Animal videos, dancing videos, tutorials, news, podcasts, music, etc.
Could I be wrong? Yeah, sure. My experience tells me the following:
- The vast majority of people claim to hate AI slop.
- Most people think they can reliably recognize AI slop.
- Almost everyone is getting fooled by AI in some form form at some frequency.
- AI slop almost can't be avoided without only following certain creators or content discovery, and even then it's not completely avoidable.
- I've been duped by AI slop occasionally, and I'm the guy who used to have to inform people all the time that viral videos were faking things with CGI (my family has a history in the entertainment business).
- At least half of people are more upset by the fact someone is breaking their belief in content being real than by the fact that the content intentionally fooled them.
- Most people aren't significantly changing their media consumption habits in response to AI slop.
That's why I am not particularly interested in what the average American thinks about AI. It's about as insightful as asking a woman about dating advice for men. If people overwhelmingly think AI is bad for society, then the answer would be for them to stop consuming it, yet they still do, and there's really no excuse for them to do so if they really think it's that bad.
First, people seek authenticity. In written content, people want to know there is a real human author thinking about every word, and in photos, people do not want to be deceived by deepfakes. It's much harder to tell in a world of AI slop, hence the rise of apps like Pangram. This is a significant negative externality.
Second, people who invest their time learning creative fields seek recognition for all the hard work they have put in. Now their skills are devalued, again because of slop. This is another negative externality.
Having more pictures and videos is nice in some ways but your head is in the sand if you think it's all roses.
Even if we're talking about creative arts, if people cannot tell the difference between AI-generated content and human-generated content, then how are they being harmed by the AI-generated creative content?
Assuming they value them equally and they prefer to have more content, AI is strictly a positive for people.
"Strictly a positive" is also a strange choice of words when the technology is ripping out the livelihoods of so many creators. I would accept "it has tradeoffs, but is a net positive over the long run". But the former is objectively false.
I encourage you to read "About the Study".
"Ipsos conducted sampling, interviewing and tabulation for the survey using the KnowledgePanel, a nationwide survey panel designed to be representative of the U.S. adult population. KnowledgePanel members are recruited through probability sampling methods using address-based sampling. Panel members who do not have internet access are provided with a tablet and internet service. KnowledgePanel members receive a per survey incentive, usually the equivalent of $1 (though for some it is $2) in points that can be redeemed for cash or prizes."
Yeah, the people who disagree with you are never worth listening to. (/s)