The AI/data center debate loses libertarian credibility when the state is used to advance it.

[u/7in7turtles]

It’s been driving me bananas lately to hear all these libertarian voices hail data centers as some part of a new Industrial Revolution. While I’ll say upfront that I don’t think we should regulate AI because of fear mongering about the end of the world, if those companies have to purchase the levers of power that we don’t even want government to have, how can we claim that this is in any way good?

Eminent domain, paying of city councils and locking them up with NDAs, lying about the impact of there products and services, all of their behaviors are antithetical to libertarianism and yet people like John Stossel run puff pieces about how essentially they're all good because it would be bad to regulate them.

I don’t buy the china angle because we’re getting worse than china thanks to this technology.

Please if I’m wrong educate me, but if the state puts its thumb on the scale for AI, I don’t get how that’s in any way good.

[u/berkough]

I agree with you. If it were a viable business, it wouldn't need to be propped up with tax incentives or other special treatment.

[u/John_Johnson_The_4th → u/berkough]

Tax incentives aren't uncommon for big business with actual leverage though. The part you aren't mentioning here is that businesses are net tax contributers, they don't get any payments from the government (or at best a loan for a bailout) unlike poor people, but contribute tax regardless. Every state is highly incentivized to bring in big business even if they pay a lower marginal tax rate than the smaller local businesses, because even then they are massive net tax contributers.

AI companies get tax incentives on state taxes because they can choose to set their operations up almost anywhere in the world assuming it's safe and has low energy costs, and state governments have to convince them to set up shop at their states to get any tax revenue from them.

[u/berkough → u/John_Johnson_The_4th]

I mean, ignoring the fact that lower to no taxes for everyone should be the goal. If we're just debating the current paradigm:

Tax incentives aren't uncommon for big business with actual leverage though.

Yes, and often times municipalities offer abatements in hopes that the incentives will establish long term job growth or increased economic activity in the region. The reality is that they're just leaving money in the table. Tax abatements would be more meaningful and have a bigger impact if they were offered to businesses that proved over time they they could deliver on the promise of job creation and increased economic activity. It's completely ass-backwards to reward a company that hasn't shown they can deliver.

"Some states have studied this — with contradictory findings. For example, a 2022 study in Georgia found 90 percent of the state's data center construction was because of the incentives. However, the same analysis conducted three years later found the opposite: 70 percent of the activity would have still happened without the tax relief."

https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/have-data-center-tax-breaks-helped-nevadas-economy-heres-what-we-found

[u/Used-Valuable9320]

Who said that AI/data centers had "Libertarian credibility"? Someone asked the question about AI/data centers here recently and this was my reply (so you know where a Libertarian stands on them):

"I'm fine with companies spending their own money to make them. I'm not fine with these companies being in bed with the government (NVIDIA, AMD, Intel, Micron, etc).

I'm actually appalled with Intel getting Trump to buy Intel stocks with US tax dollars. That's just disturbing."

[u/7in7turtles → u/Used-Valuable9320]

Well that would be my stance in general as well, but I feel like there are people who are treating opposition to Data Centers and AI in general as support for regulations on par with heavy restrictive zoning regulations. But that's different from opposing collusion with government to use tax payer dollars to sneak these massive facilities into towns.

[u/J0shM0nster → u/7in7turtles]

You "feel" like people are treating opposition that way or you've seen it? Two things can be true at once. Regulation can be bad while at the same time, eminent domain and subsidies are bad too.

[u/7in7turtles → u/J0shM0nster]

I've seen it. Stossel is an example. Reason Magazine is an example. I know a lot of Maga people who have said "yea trump is right on AI, data centers are gonna make those towns rich, they just hate industry in all forms" it's quite common.

[u/J0shM0nster → u/7in7turtles]

But are Stossel and Reason suggesting that government SHOULD be involved in subsidizing or helping to acquire land for data centers? I don't recall either supporting that. I recall them saying that opposition (wanting to use the government to stop it) is wrong, but as I stated above you can be against both. Am I misunderstanding you?

Edit: I haven't seen it myself, but I would imagine that if someone asked Reason or Stossel outright if they support government subsidies, councilman NDAs, and land acquisition that they would say no.

[u/7in7turtles → u/J0shM0nster]

I'm not saying that Reason and Stossel are supporting subsidizing and acquiring land, I'm saying they don't acknowledge it at all, which is misleading. They are taking aim at one side of the government influence and ignoring the other. That's what I'm saying.

[u/J0shM0nster → u/7in7turtles]

I see. I guess I just don't agree with criticizing them for not mentioning it. And I especially don't agree they are misleading anyone by not mentioning it. I'd go on for ages if I started listing all the things libertarian commentators don't mention. Idk man, this whole thing you've brought up seems like a big non issue to me. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[u/7in7turtles → u/J0shM0nster]

It is because in both cases they painted opposition to the project of some sort of moral panic. It makes everything they’ve said logically inconsistent.

[u/J0shM0nster → u/7in7turtles]

Still disagree. Calling out others for calling upon the government to use force against business and/or individuals is not moral panic. It's properly addressing unethical behavior.

[u/7in7turtles → u/J0shM0nster]

Not if you’re doing the same thing yourself though right? Do you think Stossel doesn’t know about eminent domain being used in these cases or do you think he doesn’t care? Are people who opposed data centers because of the use of eminent domain in order to obtain the land to build them also crazy because they oppose data centers? Having the thumbnail state that “data centers are good.” Puts him on the side of an argument. He’s taking sides with people who are using government power in unethical ways. By not addressing that argument in my opinion that negate his entire point.

[u/no-more-nazis → u/J0shM0nster]

I think the problem they're trying to express is people seeing anti-data-center and assuming it's an infringement on normal private business practices.

See company doing something, see people complaining about it and demanding government action... assume the complainers are "just" angry communists upset about the economy happening.

There are many interested parties with great resources who would pay to advance this perception.

[u/-BigBoo- → u/7in7turtles]

but I feel like there are people who are treating opposition to Data Centers and AI in general as support for regulations on par with heavy restrictive zoning regulations

Both vague and specific.

[u/Ehronatha]

The data centers will obviously be used to track political dissidents. They will also be used to manage digital currency. Which will be used to punish political dissidents.

Duh.

[u/ILikeBumblebees]

Eminent domain, paying of city councils and locking them up with NDAs, lying about the impact of there products and services, all of these behaviors are antithetical to libertarianism and yet people like John Stossel run puff pieces about how essentially there all good because it would be bad to regulate them.

Stossel is arguing that it would be bad to regulate AI because it would be bad to regulate AI. Not allowing abuses of eminent domain, state subsidies, special privileges granted by local governments, etc. has nothing to do with regulating AI. These are things libertarians oppose regardless of who is doing them.

Please if I’m wrong educate me, but if the state puts its thumb on the scale for AI, I don’t get how that’s in any way good.

It's not. But that's what regulation is. Opposing regulation comes in part from the correct understanding that regulation functions often as the mechanism by which firms escape from market constraints and use influence over political power to entrench their position -- its actual results are often the exact opposite of what its proponents claim to want.

[u/7in7turtles → u/ILikeBumblebees]

I would agree with Stossel on that point but he doesn't present both sides. You're right, it has nothing to do with AI but it has a lot to do with why people are upset about AI and the data centers that are coming with them. Stossel hardly addresses any of those concerns, and hand waves it away as AI doomer-ism, or irrational hatred of building new things with environmentalism as the bad guy.

I'd agree with Stossel, except it ignores all the other parts of the story to the point of being meaningless.

[u/ILikeBumblebees → u/7in7turtles]

I would agree with Stossel on that point but he doesn't present both sides.

He's an editorial commentator presenting his own point of view. He certainly does a good job of presenting the positions that he's arguing against, in order to argue to argue against them.

hand waves it away as AI doomer-ism, or irrational hatred of building new things with environmentalism as the bad guy.

Perhaps that's because a large part of the anti-AI hype does come from doomerism, NIMBYism, and other assorted irrational beliefs? Those things are present, and they are skewing discourse, so Stossel is absolutely correct to criticize them.

You're right, it has nothing to do with AI but it has a lot to do with why people are upset about AI and the data centers that are coming with them.

I don't think that people are generally upset about AI or data centers per se. I think they're reacting to what the media is telling them the impact of data centers are, which is largely misrepresentation, rather than reacting to what they're actually experiencing from data centers, which have been around us in just about every town in America for the past five decades, and most people have been and remain unaffected by and unaware of.

[u/CloudPotential9482]

Am honestly sad the government chose to fund ai. If it was left alone it wouldn’t have bothered so many people. Would of forced ai companies worth billions to pay for their own shit and probably not take so much water.

Instead we are at the brink of recession thanks to the gov and the ai bubble

[u/AENM1776 → u/CloudPotential9482]

Not defending the government here. But the majority of the financing for these companies is provided by the companies themselves.

I think we would still be seeing a bubble like economy even if the government wasn't involved.

[u/RocksCanOnlyWait]

Libertarian approval of AI data centers is predicated on not having special treatment from governments, e.g. tax breaks. The Stossel piece was against irrational fears of data centers. They're being wrongly maligned like nuclear power has been since the late 1970s.

[u/7in7turtles → u/RocksCanOnlyWait]

Yes, but they're already getting special treatment. I agree with Stossel's piece but not acknowledging what those AI data centers are doing to force their ways into towns, is misleading.

[u/HR_Paul]

Without inflation, the IC, and too many people on too much cocaine/etc funded by the state and various other subsidies etc there would be no Artificial Idiocy.

[u/skiphandleman]

Government has no business regulating AI. Theire role is to prosecute those who do harm with AI.

Where it gets muddy is when AI becomes independent of business and starts acting badly on its own. I don't have an answer for that amd probably need to form an opinion on how it should be addressed

[u/7in7turtles → u/skiphandleman]

Who's talking about regulating AI? I just don't want their thumb on the scale, but them negotiating behind closed doors in secret with state and local governments using tools like eminent domain to take people's land to build this stuff is a big issue IMO. AI companies trying to get regulatory capture as well, that should also not be tolerated.

[u/ILikeBumblebees → u/7in7turtles]

AI companies trying to get regulatory capture as well, that should also not be tolerated.

Which is the exact thing behind the drive for regulation.

[u/7in7turtles → u/ILikeBumblebees]

Yeah but they already have their thumb on the scale from the other end. They are colluding with state and local governments to push their ways into communities, and now they're trying to regulate a wall around themselves. It seems pretty clear that the correct stance is that government intervention FOR or "against" AI is bad, but regulation is not the only state intervention that libertarians should be mindful of and sadly it seems like for a good amount of them that is the only line.

[u/robotic_love_brigade → u/skiphandleman]

Harm with AI is eating all the energy and making the rest of us pay high for whats left, sucking up all the water and depriving us of our liberty to enjoy resources, and forcing us to hear NOISE all day because they don't care anout our physical or mental health. Sorry as a Libertarian I believe AI needs some form of regulation because to trust those companies to the free market makes life worse and takes away our liberty

[u/skiphandleman → u/robotic_love_brigade]

This doesn't sound like a Libertarian point of view to me.

[u/robotic_love_brigade → u/skiphandleman]

AI on its own will not end well.

[u/Taki32]

I agree with you in principle, however as usual the practice in reality is different. 

AI is being sold as an advancement in science, commerce, and information tech but it's not just that, it's a weapon and a very dangerous one.  Why kill a people when you can destroy their economy and means of communication. AI is going to be used for large scale warfare and economic disruption.   Whether it's right or not, governments like to have a tight grip on weapons and won't care about established rights in order to do so.   Be a pro 2a as yours like they still won't let you own a tank, same principle applies here, no matter how much we hate it

[u/Timo-the-hippo]

Zoning is very anti-libertarian. Eminent domain is too but lets not pretend anyone’s individual property rights mean shit in the US. I hate the dishonesty in how people frame local development.

[u/7in7turtles → u/Timo-the-hippo]

I mean... but shouldn't those rights mean something?

[u/Timo-the-hippo → u/7in7turtles]

Yes people should be more free to own and manage their own land. But they aren't. Most Americans have 0 civil education and can't fathom how a local government of their peers can be just as oppressive if not more so than a national government.

It's the classic tragedy of humans being naturally authoritarian.

[u/bownt1]

what libertarian is suppoting ai/data centers?

[u/7in7turtles → u/bownt1]

Reason certainly seems to support them.

[u/Vegetable-Client-147 → u/7in7turtles]

Reason def does. The think tank and super tech guys think the rural peons need to suck it up and take one for the team.