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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 talk about in real life with the real people who like and respect them.
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.
I said most. Fine, add women who don't notice or mind that to it, same difference. What is not just a disrespect of boundaries, but an inability to even perceive them, to acknowledge them at all, is sticking out so glaringly in all these discussions. That people don't want to consume gen-AI stuff doesn't matter, it cannot be accepted anyway, so let's talk about how stupid they are and how that makes their choice invalid. Consent? What is consent?
> It's not self-evident that pointing out hypocrisy isn't a valid refutation
If I say drinking tons of sugary soda every day is bad for you, when I drink nothing but myself, how would my hypocrisy have a bearing on the effects of drinking soda? Yes, it's self-evident. It shouldn't even need saying because nobody should be so dishonest to even attempt it as an argument. It's the kind of dumb shit people say about other people, never to them.
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.
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
This is a categorically unfair metric as for most if not all online services there is literally no opt-out from AI for consumers. It is embedded into products we have to use for daily life like email. You can't disable it even if you wanted to.
> AI is the most rapidly adopted service in human history.
Do you have any sources for this or how this was calculated?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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."
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.
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."
57 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 8.9 ms ] threadAll 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.
and maybe what I’m taking away from your post is too many god damned things rely on a datacenter.
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.
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.
> It's not self-evident that pointing out hypocrisy isn't a valid refutation
If I say drinking tons of sugary soda every day is bad for you, when I drink nothing but myself, how would my hypocrisy have a bearing on the effects of drinking soda? Yes, it's self-evident. It shouldn't even need saying because nobody should be so dishonest to even attempt it as an argument. It's the kind of dumb shit people say about other people, never to them.
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.
In the same sense that a wounded man cornered by lions might "have a preference" to jump off the cliff rather than being eaten.
> AI is the most rapidly adopted service in human history.
Do you have any sources for this or how this was calculated?
I'm still skeptical that the source of Western dissent is misinformation campaigns run by said Asiatic bloc, though.
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.
American CEOs are almost comic book levels of evil.
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?
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.
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."
Reminds me of the quote: