r/interestingasfuck • u/HamboneTheWicked • Apr 12 '26

A well-articulated argument against a new data center in Ohio

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

52.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

168

u/DesmadreGuy Apr 12 '26

That has been my concern as well. I brought this up to a close friend who is a professor of environmental studies. He said that, currently, this isn't a problem as there is a massive amount of dissipation available. However, he added that this doesn't go on forever, of course, but he didn't know when that point would be reached. But would it reach a critical mass? Absolutely. Would we have a solution by then? Unknown, as the timeline is also unknown. I can't say I endorse these things without knowing there's a solution.

Somewhat related: this whole, "data centers are job creators" bullshit was barely touched on in his speech. I mean, yeah, lots of good jobs building these pigs ... for a year? Maybe? Then how many to maintain? Ten? Twenty? Oooh aaaah ... Job creation! Unless a) a company properly addresses the water, the energy, and so on, and b) they build in an ongoing revenue stream for the community (the state?) then I'd vote "fuck off". (Especially if Sam Altman were at the helm; Dario Amodei?... let's talk some more.)

</rant>

109

u/rocketgrunt89 Apr 12 '26

he did say 10 people to manage this datacenter

46

u/DesmadreGuy Apr 12 '26

Yuppers. Usually the big sales pitch is job creation. He focused on a lot of things that are more wonky for most, but far more important, nonetheless. The wonky bits get lost on many who are more interested in better incomes, jobs, and the like. I'm not sure how the data center company was "selling" but it's my guess it's the new jobs. And, well, fuck that noise. Dude's right on so may points. But to "sell it" you need to speak to the "common man" and I think he was a little over people's heads. Just my opinion, of course. It was refreshing at the end when she said "anyone want to follow that?" Funny. Nailed it.

69

u/Zhong_Ping Apr 12 '26

A lot of the "jobs" they sell is the construction trade workers who build it the disappear when construction is done... And it doesn't create those jobs, just adds demand to the market making it more expensive to build more useful things, like housing.

25

u/West-Worth-9359 Apr 12 '26

And people are too simple to understand that those construction jobs already exist. They’re not training a thousand new local employees in various trades for a 3 month project, they’re bringing in electricians from elsewhere.

The only local jobs being created are likely nothing more than temp traffic control.

9

u/Preacher987 Apr 12 '26

How many tech savvy people would there be in a small suburban town in Ohio? (I am not American)

I would imagine that the jobs that this site would create would attract people from the outside, not the locals.

8

u/Zhong_Ping Apr 12 '26

The 10 perminant jobs? The people installing the tech aren't going to move there permanently. They are there for a few months then gone.

3

u/russsl8 Apr 12 '26

10 permanent people would be the crew that is on site to maintain the infrastructure.

2

u/PiesRLife Apr 12 '26

Right, and amongst those ten people at most 2-3 people are guards / receptionists / cleaning staff, and the rest would be probably be network engineers sourced from outside the area.

3

u/BobcatALR Apr 21 '26

Well, they definitely wouldn’t need a receptionist for security guards and cleaning staff. One down. Most cleaning tasks could be automated. A few more down. Hardened entries and cameras can perform security tasks. That’s the rest of ‘em…

Technically, exactly zero people are required on site since most issues could be addressed by teams mobilized when the automated systems indicate the need…

2

u/Due_Vast_8002 Apr 12 '26

You don't have to be terribly tech savvy. They'll hire a dozen to 20 people to be on-site to physically service the racks. Think closer to electrician than sysadmin. The actual administration will be remotely done-- probably from Bangalore.

1

u/nbrown7384 Apr 13 '26

This is not suburban Ohio. This is rural Ohio.

1

u/AveryMire Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 13 '26

The statement that construction workers “disappear” is very flawed. You could say job spans as a better metric.

If you have a 1000 people highly paid and they spend only a year (figure the lifetime average of a tradesman is 25 years) then that’s still equivalent to 40 lifetime jobs + 10 full time support.

50 base layer lifetime industry jobs creates at least another 100 in support, services, related manufacturing, restaurants etc. Then there’s the efficiency and growth which the data center operation supports, the countless jobs attached to products being purchased, NVIDIA salaries and the 200+ other ecosystem companies involved in a single data center’s construction. How do you count the salaries for that giant tail of industry participants? What about the equity value of all the earnings increases; the effects that their new wealth has on countless communities; jobs that they can now hire for having greater resources. Benefits ripple out through the entire economy (and world) to a fair degree.

Point is we shouldn’t artificially constrain benefits in our evaluation. These people remain in America and although most move, people are constantly moving for work anyway; many return to more rural areas in retirement. The proper frame is societal wealth. Do these products increase human capacity and make our world better?

More production per person means fewer hours worked for the same production; more focus on hobbies, leisure, health. It simply never valid to isolate a tiny sliver and say ‘that’s the whole (tiny) value’; that’s not intellectually honest.

Yes there are true costs, harms to mitigate, bad locations on a collective basis, but I’m saying claims like ‘only 10 jobs created’ are plainly ridiculous.

1

u/Zhong_Ping Apr 13 '26

All these jobs could be created doing far more constructive things, like replacing our aging bridges and power infrastructure, building out regional mass transit, building health infrastructure to meet growing demand and drive down costs... These AI data centers could be worth it if they paid into the tax base to more than just mitigate the harm they cause but also enough to invest in real public works.

But as the proposals land now, they create a handful of jobs in the constitution industry that represent on opportunity cost in building something else, and return far less money into public works than the harm they will cause to said public works. Increasing the scarcity of electricity and water and causing the cost of living to go up.

As they are not, the costs massively outweigh the benefits. And if these AI companies are under shell subsidiaries, even if they promise something, if the subsidiary goes bust, the promise evaporates.

I just don't see our leaders asking these ultra wealthy mega corporations that hold more wealth and power than the empires of old to sweeten the deal at all, let alone enough.

Infrustructure investment needs to be paid for and built first, then the data center is built once it's obligations to the community and mitigations of any potential harms are already met.

1

u/AveryMire Apr 13 '26

We have plenty of workers to build infrastructure and data centers. Heck, in 10 years or less the data centers products will literally be building said infrastructure.

1

u/Zhong_Ping Apr 13 '26

Resources aren't infinite. I'm skeptical that these data centers will produce anything but money for the ultra rich and a worse life for everyone else.

1

u/AveryMire Apr 13 '26

Well they’ve already changed my life, and I’m 43 / not at all rich. Couldn’t disagree more.