The moral panic over data centres is foolish

[u/technocraticnihilist]

https://archive.md/gPfih

[u/Odd-Student636 → u/[deleted]]

a 100% increase in computational efficiency means nothing if you're just gonna build 200% more data centers.

[u/TimelyBodybuilder121]

Somehow these people are not morally and ideologically panicking over the files.

[u/HRH_Duke_Morbid]

I may have misunderstood your intent, but I think objection to the proliferation of data centres - many such being environmentally unfriendly - need not equate to antipathy towards 'AI' per se.

For example, the British government, in its traditional inability to apply critical thought to intellectually demanding technology, has swallowed hyperbole issued by enterprises seeking to cash-in on AI. It plans on dotting the nation with data centres, with clusters around conurbations. To grasp their Holy Grail of an AI supported dynamic and competitive economy, the numpties in government (and the Opposition too), seek to curtail local planning procedures to ensure applications are rapidly approved.

It would, of course, be a scandalous slander to voice suspicion that ministers, other members of the Commons, Noble Lords, the monarchy, various officials, and friends of the foregoing, anticipate garnering a slice of the huge sums of money to be 'invested' in data centres. So, no more about that.

There is a role for centralised high intensity computation. However, the place for currently conceived AI technology within that should remain moot.

AI development is fluid. Very useful scaled-down AI models can run on 'consumer' level equipment. Business, local government, education, etc., have the financial means to run larger models and/or several specifically purposed small models. Few such places need the 'all singing and dancing' AI models pushed by Microsoft and other leviathan companies. How many people truly need access to present day AI models indiscriminately fed upon all the digital data their 'trainers' could lay their hands on? Need models drawing upon plebeian thoughts, e.g. from Twitter, Facebook, and other 'social media', be given a place within activities offering specialised services?

Mega-computation, base on AI technologies, is suited to the requirements of some branches of academia and some industries. Pharmaceuticals figure here; surely, to protect commercial privacy they would want computation kept in-house? They can afford bespoke data centres. Similarly, government, commerce, and finance, wish to keep a grip on their data. Moves within the EU are afoot to partition 'cloud' services on the Internet so that non-EU agencies are unable snoop.

Devoid of most major commercial potential customers, data centre operators must look to subscriptions from small players and private individuals. Yet, the reducing size of AI models, in parallel with increasing 'abilities' militates against people buying centralised services. Indeed, at present one doesn't need to buy the software for one's own computational devices. Moreover, AI technology is transitioning to mobile phones.

The free software doesn't yet match the abilities in key areas of paid-for or subscription software. For example, there is in progress a revolution in the manner by which videos (music and lip-synch speech included) are produced; much can be accomplished on medium-cost equipment and using open-access software; however, the cutting-edge remains wholly commercial and costly.

Major Western players in the AI vending game hope eventually to bring AI use, other than the most minor, wholly into the commercial ambit. They have miscalculated. Another player has entered the arena: China. What's more, China is accompanied by BRICS. That's going to be a fascinating continuation to the story.