They'd probably lose money on the stocks with the way things are going. It'd let the owners offload risk. The residents are free to use the money to buy stocks if they want to.
If the stocks lose value then nothing was really lost, since it would mean AI is a bubble and not much will change. This would be to offset whatever impact AI will have. The more it succeeds the more people get paid. Not saying it's a good idea, but I do think it's better than UBI.
>Everyone should get stocks considering AI is trained on everyone's data.
Anthropic's IPO is rumored to be $2T. For the sake of argument let's round it up to 10T to account for openai and any post IPO pop. For the sake of argument let's also assume the US government straight up expropriates any stake existing shareholders have. With those rosy assumptions, you get a whopping $29.4k per American. That might sound like a nice stimmy check, but that's less than 2 years of federal government expenses.
I think you're downplaying how much money $29k is to most people. That's 5-10x the total covid stimulus, and it's not as inflationary because it's redistributing wealth, not printing money.
the one-time payment will decrease the value of property they own, and increase their monthly expenses, but maybe they've been brainwashed into thinking otherwise and will take the bait
basically. You'd need to build out electricity and network infrastructure and that's not like plugging a cable into a pole. With the amount of power you need voltage substations, transmissions lines, upgrades to the existing grid, land assessments etc.
And obviously with it tons of skilled labor and people that would have to live somewhere.
More power than anything* the fibre usually comes later.
One going up near me is being built on the site of an old coal fired power plant. Lots of juice and an old dam for water. Theres not exactly 2000 cores of fiber out that way, but I am sure it will come eventually.
Theres some going into old paper mills and logging camps too, same sort of thing, near water, lots of juice, out of the way.
*Sometimes theres a simultaneous fibre buildout, or they are built where theres a lot passing through but its less of a concern afaik.
> More power than anything* the fibre usually comes later.
This depends a lot on the datacenter. Some are sited specifically around proximity to existing fiber, or more especially proximity to places where multiple fiber backbones intersect (e.g. carrier hotels / meet-me-rooms). There's a datacenter going up here in Reno to that exact effect, with a lot of the public complaints being “but why do we need a datacenter in the middle of town?” even though:
1) that's where multiple fiber backbones intersect
2) it's being built in a mixed commercial/industrial zone with other datacenters already there
3) the company building it has another datacenter dead smack in the middle of Downtown doing similar carrier hotel stuff, and the new one is an extension of that
I’m of the opinion that in order for any tax incentives for datacenters to make sense, communities should pursue direct assistance. A free training program for residents to learn how to use AI effectively, along with a lifetime subscription tier or API credit allocation would be a good start.
Not enough to cover the healthcare costs down the line from the exposure. Who knows what long term proximity/exposure to data centers does to the human body? My guess is nothing good based on the reports from farmers about bees and cows.
28 comments
[ 0.25 ms ] story [ 46.0 ms ] threadAnthropic's IPO is rumored to be $2T. For the sake of argument let's round it up to 10T to account for openai and any post IPO pop. For the sake of argument let's also assume the US government straight up expropriates any stake existing shareholders have. With those rosy assumptions, you get a whopping $29.4k per American. That might sound like a nice stimmy check, but that's less than 2 years of federal government expenses.
But if they do this in shit hole states were nobody wants to live in the first place it could work.
Hopefully the equity they've invested in their homes increases instead of decreases in value after this project, but I'd wager it won't.
Their utility bills will also be increasing, I'd imagine.
In the end, still not a great deal for the peasants.
Is it proximity to the city power grids and fiber backbones?
Seems that would be solvable then land is trivial if they go somewhere without objetors
And obviously with it tons of skilled labor and people that would have to live somewhere.
One going up near me is being built on the site of an old coal fired power plant. Lots of juice and an old dam for water. Theres not exactly 2000 cores of fiber out that way, but I am sure it will come eventually.
Theres some going into old paper mills and logging camps too, same sort of thing, near water, lots of juice, out of the way.
*Sometimes theres a simultaneous fibre buildout, or they are built where theres a lot passing through but its less of a concern afaik.
This depends a lot on the datacenter. Some are sited specifically around proximity to existing fiber, or more especially proximity to places where multiple fiber backbones intersect (e.g. carrier hotels / meet-me-rooms). There's a datacenter going up here in Reno to that exact effect, with a lot of the public complaints being “but why do we need a datacenter in the middle of town?” even though:
1) that's where multiple fiber backbones intersect
2) it's being built in a mixed commercial/industrial zone with other datacenters already there
3) the company building it has another datacenter dead smack in the middle of Downtown doing similar carrier hotel stuff, and the new one is an extension of that