upvote

points

by Avicebron6 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby gwerbin6 hours ago|
next
[-]
> Strict limits on governmental regulation wherein any restrictions must be demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to a compelling public safety or health interest. > Mandatory safety protocols for AI-controlled critical infrastructure, including a shutdown mechanism and compulsory annual risk management reviews.

Read: industry can do whatever we want, but the government also has to put up barriers to entry that favor large incumbents.

This has nothing to do with rights or even computing, it's just regulatory capture.

reply
upvoteby tzs4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Including a shutdown mechanism and doing an annual risk management review favors large incumbents?
reply
upvoteby derektank1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Annual risk management reviews definitely favor large incumbents. Large incumbents have the ability to hire and maintain compliance teams. That burden is definitely a barrier to entry to new competitors (though not an insurmountable one).
reply
upvoteby lokar47 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
But it only applies to AI controlling critical infrastructure, you think this is an issue in practice?

I would think if a power plant deploys some AI model to optimize something or other, it would be on the plant operator to perform the reviews, regardless of who they get the AI from.

reply
upvoteby autoexec4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The shutdown mechanism would have existed anyway and a "risk management review" sounds exactly like the sort of toothless policy that's supposed to make people feel better without actually putting any limits or enforcement on the industry
reply
upvoteby Onavo4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Not to mention 100K in consultancy fees for compliance.
reply
upvoteby nradov1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Why would the industry need any limits or enforcement?
reply
upvoteby ctmnt42 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
I can’t tell if you’re joking or not, but it’s funny either way.
reply
upvoteby terminalshort2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
There are no small businesses building data centers.
reply
upvoteby noahbp2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
It’s a good thing that businesses can make investment plans with legible rules to follow. Too many communities are blocking data centers for no good reason, and this preempts NIMBYs and unreasonable local opposition.

“What about my water?”- not an issue in this area.

“What about my electric bill?”- we’re signing long term contracts with local power companies or building out our own capacity; we eat the marginal costs and don’t increase your bill.

“What about noise?”- we’re far enough away from the nearest person that they cannot hear us; fans are x decibels at y distance; not a problem.

“I saw on Facebook that data centers poison the water and spy on me”- seek help, you cannot block us from building out and giving you oodles of tax money for this nonsense reason.

reply
upvoteby flats2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I don’t think it counts as NIMBYism if you don’t want it in yours or anybody’s backyard, ever. I would describe that as principled opposition.

Also, what happens when we don’t need such enormous data centers anymore? How many communities in the U.S. are saddled with enormous dead malls while the developers walk away with zero liability?

reply
upvoteby seu10 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> giving you oodles of tax money for this nonsense reason.

You've never heard of tax avoidance, have you?

https://itep.org/trump-meta-tesla-alphabet-amazon-obbba-taxe...

reply
upvoteby dickersnoodle2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
"We don't want you here" sounds like a perfectly good reason to me.
reply
upvoteby soulofmischief1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
This research presentation from Benn Jordan will hopefully change your mind on the noise issue and its consequences. I highly recommend it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bP80DEAbuo
reply
upvoteby idiotsecant2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
There is an incredibly good reason not to have datacenters in montana - a whole lot of the additional load will be from colstrip - one of the dirtiest coal mines left in the United States.
reply
upvoteby ToucanLoucan6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
You know if we're gonna pass laws to make it illegal for the government to interfere with the Torment Nexus, the least they could do is not gaslight us with the fucking name of the law. Just tell us the billionaires get to fuck the planet in the eye and the rest of us have to deal with it, at least it's honest that way.
reply
upvoteby jfengel5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Practically every law, and lobbying organization, is named for exactly the opposite of what it does. If I see the Puppies and Orphans Protection Act of 2028, I assume its purpose is to use puppies to strangle orphans. Proponents will point to the limitation on how many puppies you can use per orphan.

Similarly, if I see the People For X organization, I assume they are against X. The Committee for Green Spaces and Clean Air is guaranteed to be an oil company.

Once you develop that reflex, everything calms down. Though admittedly, I passed a sign for Fidos for Freedom. I'm not quite sure what Fidos Against Freedom does. I think they give dogs to disabled people, and they bark at you if you try to leave the house.

reply
upvoteby idle_zealot4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
There is something that this tactic misses: when people try to do good things, the name of their organization or policy is usually pretty honest. In an environment like ours, though, that still means that your strategy of assuming the opposite meaning has something like a 95% expected success rate.
reply
upvoteby ToucanLoucan5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
All I can think of is Dr. Augustine from Avatar. "They're just pissing on us without even the courtesy of calling it rain."
reply
upvoteby bigfishrunning6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
They can't be that blatant, that's how you lose your next term
reply
upvoteby saghm4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The second term for the "drain the swamp" president implies otherwise (it did take another cycle, but that arguably had more to do with covid than corruption).
reply
upvoteby RRWagner2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
You cant drain a swamp by filling it with billionaire alligators.
reply
upvoteby basilgohar2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
That's because his opponent and her party were fully behind and financing a genocide in Gaza at the time.
reply
upvoteby quotemstr5 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
And is that supposed to be a bad thing?
reply
upvoteby saghm4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
At the very least, it's a bit weird to be calling it a Right to Compute if the actual goal is to enable investments. It's hard not to be concerned about whether it's even about establishing a right at all, or if that's entirely posturing to try to build support for something that isn't really about rights at all. At that point, it's hard to trust anything else they're saying about the motives, since they've established that they're willing to fudge things to make it harder to argue against.

The point isn't whether it's bad or good, but that it establishes a pattern of inconsistency.

reply
upvoteby wsve13 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
It's legislation to prevent the regulation of AI and data centers. Yes, that's a bad thing
reply
upvoteby Mistletoe6 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
So it should be renamed Right to Datacenter Act. And here I thought they were giving people power over their private computers and being surveilled on them…

Reminds me of some bill in my state about Right to Farm and when you looked deeper it was about rights for huge corporate hog farms to dump waste in the rivers. The slimiest corps always do this 1984 level double talk when they name their bills. It’s a dead giveaway. Citizens United, oh wow cool this is about protecting citizens!

reply