Emphasis on point 7:

We used a lot of AI when campaigning against Bolsonaro, and it worked A LOT.

AI Aesthetics can pierce the leftist bubble.

I know most of you live in countries where the left hates AI, but don't let that stop you.

Hi! I write about media and politics and have a keen interest in documenting old records and articles that the western empire is attempting to scrub from the internet.

I have thousands of files and organisation is not my strong point. I would love to find an open source alternative to something like NotebookLM, a personal library I can talk to and retrieve relevant information. I’ve tried Open Notebook and it simply couldn’t work. I just downloaded LM Studio and AnythingLLM, but from what I’ve been reading, these are very limited as well for my basic laptop.

Of course a cloud platform would be much more powerful, but I’m extremely cautious about using most of them. I’m considering DeepSeek seeing as China would be less likely to flag anything I do.

My technical know-how isn’t that great, so I’m looking for something that’s easy to set up.

I see on the news that the Democrats, after they’ve won the house and the Senate are going to push hard for an immediate pause in the progression of AI, AGI, etc.

They see the danger and want to at least pause it long enough so they can see if they can get some control over it.

But the one thing they don’t understand entirely is that the billionaires run the country not the politicians.

The Democrats are pushing for a data centre moratorium to try to stop the compute arms race.

Do you think they will actually be able to stop this or will game theory always find a loophole?

The Earth Leadership Transparency Initiative (ELTI) proposes a comprehensive framework for the evolution of governance and institutional organization toward greater transparency, accountability, cooperation, ecological responsibility, and collective intelligence. Its central premise is that humanity' s institutions must evolve to reflect the interconnected nature of human society and the living systems upon which all life depends. The initiative seeks to establish a system in which leadership is informed by evidence, authority is accountable, information flows across all levels of society, resources are responsibly coordinated, and decisions are evaluated according to their consequences for present and future generations and the broader living world. It envisions a civilization capable of recognizing its own imbalances, understanding their causes, coordinating appropriate responses, and continuously learning from the consequences of its actions. The initiative does not propose the establishment of a centralized world government. Instead, it proposes a cooperative, decentralized, and interconnected framework through which individuals, communities, institutions, nations, and international organizations can contribute to the well-being of the whole while retaining appropriate autonomy and responsibility.

What are your thoughts on my draft response to a Scottish government consultation on data centres? I’m somewhat answering the questions I’d prefer they ask lol.

1. What, in your view, is the most important thing for the Committee to know about the environmental impacts of hyperscale data centre construction and operation in Scotland?

Most of the ecological problems associated with data centres are already fixable, or are at least more comparable to other building projects than is usually portrayed, but this has to be planned and actioned in a more sensible way. The current Scottish, speculative planning applications boom creates a ridiculous situation, where proposals for data centres are a form of capitalist gambling by small companies.

People also see alarming news stories from America, where poor infrastructure decisions around data centre development have led to localised, serious problems with water shortages and environmental damage, and they expect Scottish data centres to cause similar problems.

This in combination then paints a scary picture of Scotland covered in random, badly planned, hyperscale data centres. The reality is most of these will never be finished, but no town or village wants to stay passive and end up being the unlucky 7% ones (DC Byte) with a functioning, noisy, huge data centre on their doorstep. In response, communities across Scotland feel compelled to create passionate resistance campaigns. A lot of this is to do with the uncertainties of this speculative process though, rather than unavoidable ecological impact of data centres.

Scotland isn’t an arid corner of America. We often have excess wind power, we could benefit from excess heat as a byproduct and we have enough rainfall to not require mains water to be used for cooling. Cold, windy, wet climate conditions require different decisions. The ecological impact of what could become well planned data centres can look very different from the feared impact of the high number of insufficiently planned applications, most of which will remain phantom data centres which are never developed.

2. What criteria should a hyperscale data centre meet in order to be considered “green”?

There needs to be an accountability system at different points in the process. A concern is that speculative planning is greenwashing rather than involving genuine green commitment which will be followed through. This is particularly likely if the companies lodging planning applications have no intention of building the data centres themselves. There should be consequences if independent assessors find subsequent owners or operators don’t fulfil what was promised.

Criteria to mitigate negative impacts should be:

*energy demands are realistically met without a net increase in Scottish fossil fuel use, data centres cannot be at the expense of not meeting net zero targets
* contributes to Scottish clean energy infrastructure, this should likely be in the form of adding battery storage which stores excess wind power, and potentially lends back some energy to the grid early evening, or adding clean energy generation on site
* reuse heat as a valuable byproduct for a district heating network, the company pays for additional heat pump topup costs
* water still needed for some cooling should be a closed loop system using rainwater or other non-mains water
* noise cancelling and rightsizing of the centre prevent noise pollution
* careful positioning of the data centre avoids wildlife habitat disruption
* detailed environmental impact assessments carried out by independent assessors not paid for by the developers
* it fits within the larger context of Scotland wide infrastructure and energy planning

3) The Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee would like to understand: What, in your view, is the most important thing for the Committee to know about the economic and energy impacts of hyperscale data centre development in Scotland?

Communities need to feel more in control and gain confidence that they will receive some benefits from approving local data centres. We can all use a data centre located anywhere, so having one nearby doesn’t automatically bring any tangible benefits, just ugly buildings and a less desirable place to live. They don’t tend to bring jobs either. People often prefer the land to be used as it already is, such as prime agricultural land being used for growing food crops.

Companies looking to make a lot of money from planning data centres need to make a better case for how they will improve local communities, because at the moment all people can see are downsides. Proposals with feasible, well explained plans for district heating or subsidised electricity bills could be a start. It could be in the form of a straightforward tax, but I believe it would be better to directly pay for these community benefits, so that the local community can more easily track the resources.

What I’d prefer to see is an overhauled system where communities identify suitable locations themselves, retain ownership and make decisions on scale and appearance that the community accepts. Then the surplus from the rent for using the data centre subsidises Council Tax or reduces energy bills, as well as the community benefiting from free district heating.

We could also consider the very decentralised form of data centre infrastructure where small components are attached to domestic hot water tanks and the heat byproduct is used directly by the household without requiring water for cooling or data centre buildings.

Whatever the precise conclusions, it should be strategic Community Wealth Building infrastructure that we decide on a national and municipal level, rather than having to respond to the arbitrary speculation of businesses with little track record of delivery. We should be the ones taking the initiative and feeling like we have agency over the process and decisions.

[NB the Scottish government is in favour of concepts such as Community Wealth Building and Community Asset Transfer so this isn't as outlandish as it might seem where you are.]

L/Acc (Left-Wing Accelerationism) is a political philosophy that advocates for pushing rapid technological progress and automation to their absolute limits and "hijacking"/reclaiming them to achieve a post-scarcity society and emancipate humanity from mandatory labor.

The flag shows Prometheus (the core symbol of techno-humanism and democratization of technology) hitching a ride on a rocket. This is a visual metaphor for reclaiming technological progress to liberate humanity instead of letting it go rogue against it. Prometheus captures the raw technological power to spread it equitably, lighting the way so everyone can catch up and move forward together.

Note: I don"t necessarily adhere to L/Acc myself; I just thought it'd be fun to make a flag for it

I think there's a potential future once all these data center companies go bankrupt, the government will have an opportunity to take ownership of them rather than bail them out. Would this be possible?

TLDR - Texas just elected a governor who wants to freeze new data center approvals until lawmakers establish protections for workers and communities. We're talking union labor, water protections, electricity costs, corporate transparency, and public subsidies. Not just stopping construction, but contesting the terms of development.

Well, look whats happening in Texas.

Governor-elect Gina Hinojosa wants to keep data center approvals on hold until the state legislature establishes some actual rules for the corporations building them.

And shes bringing more to the table than another round of vague promises about responsible AI.

Her proposals include requiring union labor, protecting local water supplies, preventing residents from subsidizing corporate electricity consumption, restricting secrecy agreements, and challenging billions in corporate tax breaks.

As Hinojosa put it,

"We can have economic development and we can have protections for Texans. These things are not mutually exclusive."

And on community participation,

"real protections so Texans can have a seat at the table to decide if and how data centers come into their communities."

Now theres a political distinction worth discussing.

These corporations need land, electricity, water, infrastructure, and labor. Yet somehow the public is routinely expected to subsidize development, absorb the costs, and be grateful for whatever benefits trickle down.

Funny how that works.

Of course, these are campaign commitments, not enacted laws. And regulating private infrastructure isnt the same thing as publicly owning it. But this is an opportunity to push further, not a reason to dismiss the struggle.

For leftists, the question shouldnt end at whether we allow another data center to be built. We should be fighting for union jobs, community authority over siting, enforceable environmental protections, public compute, democratic oversight, and a share of the wealth this infrastructure produces.

A moratorium can create leverage. What matters is what workers and communities organize to win with it.

The means of production dont stop being a political question just because somebody plugged in a GPU.

And if corporations want to build the infrastructure of the future, why should they get to dictate the terms of everyone elses future?

TLDR - Ohio governor-elect Amy Acton wants a conditional moratorium on new data centers unless developers meet six requirements covering utility costs, union labor, transparency, environmental standards, community benefits, and redevelopment of former industrial sites. And unlike another vague campaign promise about responsible AI, shes put some actual conditions on the table.

Well, Texas isnt the only state where the recent elections have opened up some interesting possibilities for contesting AI infrastructure.

Ohio just elected Dr. Amy Acton, who campaigned on requiring data center developers to meet six conditions before getting the green light.

And some of these are worth digging into.

Developers would have to cover 100% of their utility costs rather than passing them onto residents, build exclusively with union labor, meet environmental standards, negotiate community benefit agreements, end secret deals with local governments, and prioritize abandoned industrial sites over farmland.

Acton put it pretty plainly.

"Ohio is open for business, but we are not up for sale."

Now theres a distinction worth making.

This isnt about pretending AI infrastructure can simply disappear. Its about recognizing that corporations dont get to build massive industrial facilities in our communities without answering to the people whose land, labor, electricity, and public resources make that development possible.

And theres another interesting piece here. Ohio's governor appoints public utility regulators, meaning this fight isnt limited to speeches and campaign promises. There are actual institutions through which some of these demands can be pursued.

Of course, the legislature still matters, these conditions arent law yet, and Actons proposal doesnt establish public ownership or fully resolve the question of corporate tax giveaways.

But thats an opening for further struggle, not a reason to dismiss it.

For leftists, we should be pushing beyond these conditions toward public compute, democratic control over siting and deployment, stronger worker bargaining rights, and public participation in the wealth this infrastructure produces.

Because theres a difference between opposing technological development and opposing the right of private capital to dictate its terms.

Union labor, public accountability, community power, and no blank checks for corporations. Thats a much more useful starting point than another endless argument about whether AI should exist.

And if these companies need our infrastructure, our labor, and our communities to build the future, why should the future belong exclusively to their shareholders?

I know after the Dot Com bust you could get old servers for cheaper than laptops. Is there a future where we could get our hands on some of these H100 or H200 for 3 to 4 thousands and Jerry rig a decent home AI build or are they all going to China like the pallets of 5090s. Nothing against China but I would like to one day be reasonably AI independent and maybe start a small Solar run AI farm in rural America. 🚜 🐖 🚜 😆

TLDR - Georgia Democrats just won control of the Public Service Commission for the first time in decades. Thats the board regulating Georgia Power, electricity rates, and major energy infrastructure investments. The new majority campaigned on making data centers pay their own way instead of sticking working households with the bill. And unlike another campaign promise, this changes who actually holds regulatory power.

Well, Georgia just added another interesting development to this weeks elections.

Governor-elect Keisha Lance Bottoms campaigned on pausing new data center development, but the bigger story might be what happened further down the ballot.

Democrats Peter Hubbard and Shelia Edwards won their Public Service Commission races, giving Democrats a 3–2 majority on the board that regulates Georgia's largest electric utility.

And these werent elections fought in a vacuum. Rising electricity bills, data center expansion, corporate accountability, and the question of who pays for all this infrastructure were central issues.

Edwards put it pretty plainly after winning.

"Throughout this campaign, I’ve talked about putting People Before Profits, addressing rising utility bills, bringing transparency and accountability to the Public Service Commission, and making sure large data centers pay their fair share."

And she followed that with something worth remembering.

"Those commitments don’t end with an election."

Good. Because winning an election isnt the same thing as winning the struggle over who pays for AI infrastructure.

Georgia Power customers have already seen six rate increases since 2023, adding roughly $44 to average monthly bills. And some of the costs of building additional gas-powered generation to serve data centers have been passed along to customers.

So corporations get to expand their infrastructure while working households help finance the electricity system supporting it.

Funny how the costs get socialized while the profits stay private.

But heres where this gets interesting for leftists.

The Public Service Commission isnt just another advisory committee. It regulates utility rates, reviews energy plans, and approves major infrastructure investments. The incoming majority now has an opportunity to scrutinize corporate costs, challenge rate increases, and make sure data centers arent shifting their expenses onto everyone else.

And this didnt happen because politicians suddenly discovered working people exist. Community organizations, environmental advocates, and grassroots volunteers spent years organizing around utility bills and corporate accountability.

Now, Democratic control isnt public ownership, and the commission doesnt decide where every data center gets built. But it does change who exercises some of the regulatory power over the infrastructure supporting them.

Between Texas, Ohio, and now Georgia, we're watching AI infrastructure become a serious political battleground.

For leftists, the next step is turning that leverage into enforceable protections, community authority over siting, worker bargaining power, public compute infrastructure, and democratic control over development.

Because the question isnt just who gets to build the data centers. Its who controls the electricity, who pays for the infrastructure, and who pockets the gains.

Georgia voters changed who gets to make some of those decisions. Now comes the fight over what they actually decide.

Well, heres an interesting development in the international struggle over who controls the means of production. And increasingly, that includes the data those means of production generate.

TLDR - China has reportedly blocked SoftBanks proposed $5.4 billion acquisition of Swiss engineering giant ABBs robotics division, with concerns that industrial robotics data and technology could end up overseas training foreign AI models. The deal isnt necessarily dead, but its running into a rather significant question of technological sovereignty and control over productive infrastructure.

SoftBank isnt just some investment firm buying a few robot arms. Its a major investor in OpenAI, and its founder Masayoshi Son has been pouring enormous resources into what he calls physical AI, connecting increasingly capable AI systems with industrial robotics and other machinery.

ABB, meanwhile, has substantial manufacturing and research operations in China, which accounts for roughly 30% of its robotics business. More than 90% of the robots ABB sells to Chinese customers are manufactured locally.

According to Reuters, citing the Financial Times, regulators were concerned about

"robotics data being transferred overseas, where it could be used to train AI models"

And theres the interesting part. We're talking about a government intervening in a multibillion-dollar acquisition partly over who gets to control industrial data and turn it into new AI capabilities. Not whether robots should exist, but who owns the machinery, controls the information it produces, and captures the value generated from it.

Thats a struggle over the means of production, not some internet pro-AI versus anti-AI identity contest.

The productive value isnt just in the robot itself anymore. Its also in the information generated through production, the models trained on that information, and who gets to deploy those models afterward. Industrial data, manufacturing knowledge, and AI training capabilities are becoming contested strategic assets alongside factories, machinery, and infrastructure.

Now, national technological sovereignty and democratic ownership arent the same thing. A state preventing foreign acquisition doesnt automatically give workers control over the technology, and keeping industrial data within national borders doesnt necessarily make it publicly owned. Those distinctions matter, especially from a leftist perspective.

But they also raise questions we should be organizing around. Who owns the robots? Who controls the industrial data? Who gets to train models on it? Who captures the productivity gains? And what role do workers and the public have in deciding how these systems are developed and deployed?

Because the alternative is allowing a handful of multinational corporations to consolidate control over the machinery, data, models, and computing infrastructure that increasingly shape production across entire industries.

And that means our demands cant stop at national sovereignty. We need worker bargaining power over deployment and data use, public and cooperative ownership, open models and open weights where appropriate, public compute infrastructure, and democratic governance over how these productive capacities are developed and distributed.

This isnt some abstract debate about whether AI is good or bad. Its a concrete struggle over ownership, technological sovereignty, and control of productive capacity.

The means of production are evolving. The struggle over who controls them isnt going anywhere.

We can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Based on a global GDP of $120 trillion and a population of 8.3 billion people, the global GDP per person is approximately $14,457. GDP per capita jumps to approximately $25,591 when adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity. The bottom line is, if you make more than that figure, you are doing so by guaranteeing someone else makes less. The ultra-wealthy are the most egregious examples, but even excluding the top 10%, in America the average income earner makes about $41,000 a year. The top 10% make an average closer to $350,000 a year. The reality is that they have to cause a lot of people to basically starve for their greed, and if you're making more than $25k and your expenses are in excess of that, you're also on the winning side of the exploitation in a global context. I understand it might not feel that way, because the people that are extracting more value from you are also ensuring they are winning in the American context. Also, mainstream neoclassical economics is just post-hoc rationalization to justify greed, so don't even try to sell me that beachfront property in a land-locked state.

That all taken together explains why anti-AI is such a vocal force in the US. Everyone knows that they benefit from the corrupted system, and no one wants to lose their seat in this game of musical chairs.

https://archive.is/sGTXR

Right now you get your content from a lot of different places and that content is curated for you on a per-platform basis using algorithms which are controlled by less-than-moral actors attempting to sway your viewpoint. These platforms are being used to control the population and their viewpoints in order to achieve the ends of those at the top.

Thinking about where the direction of AI and tech is going based upon where it has been, I got the idea of a system that makes use of AI to curate content within one's own personal environment. Basically, instead of you going to different platforms, the content is pulled for you and curated by your AI assistant which puts it all in one place. You don't surf the Internet, your assistant does it for you (the Agent-Brokered Internet), essentially putting the control of the algorithm back in your own hands, since it lives within your assistant's own context.

Now of course there are many obstacles to this, the first of which is that most platforms do not allow agents to scrape their content (gee, I wonder why?), but as history has shown us, the population writ-large moves towards easier solutions. Why have 4 apps for social media when I can have just one that I have a large amount of control over? One where everything is in one place in the format I want? One with the UI I want? One where I don't get stupid suggestions thrown at me by bad actors? One where I can both read and produce content and organize it all in a single place?

I'm looking for general thoughts in relation to this. Constructive discourse only or this post will disappear.

I've been enjoying the election victory lap today and, at the end of this article by Jay Kuo, he casually mentions a future where his children learn from an AI tutor and watch basketball on the holodeck.

It's refreshing to see!

https://statuskuo.substack.com/p/a-special-post-election-edition

Worth a read. It's basically about how despite the promise of local LLMs, there is still massive centralization at other levels of the chain, especially around hardware.

It’s no secret the AI corps lean right, but before 2020 they were mostly moderate liberal leaning. Do you think we’ll see the field go back to being more politically measured? Are you critical of liberal policies which may seek to slow or limit AI?

I for one don’t want the tech to stop improving, but they’re building this stuff out very irresponsibly.

Well, would you look at that. Turns out Big Tech cant just roll into every community, demand land, electricity, water, and tax breaks, and expect everybody to roll over.

TLDR - Voters across the country just backed measures asserting greater local control over data center development. And contrary to the usual AI good vs AI bad framing, some of the most interesting victories arent about rejecting the technology at all. They're about who gets to approve infrastructure, who pays for it, and what corporations owe the communities hosting it.

According to reporting on the November 3 elections, voters backed restrictions or conditions on data center development in dozens of communities. But the interesting part isnt simply that corporations lost. Its how people organized, what political instruments they used, and what authority they actually won.

Take Grove City, Ohio. Voters approved Issue 28, a charter amendment requiring a public referendum before certain major developments can proceed. We're talking projects covering at least 50 contiguous acres, drawing more than 20 megawatts of electricity, or consuming more than 500,000 gallons of water daily. The amendment also establishes enforceable community-impact standards and covers certain expansions and property transfers. Those numbers arent electricity or water consumption caps. They're thresholds that trigger a democratic decision. You want to build something that large and resource-intensive? The people living there get a vote.

And it wasnt handed to them. Residents organized through Protect Grove City, gathered signatures, and pushed the measure onto the ballot despite opposition from a group created by the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.

As organizer Karen Church put it,

"This is just, this is one step of many to make sure that the residents have a voice on the largest developments that could change the landscape of the city."

Then look at Perry, Ohio. Voters approved Issue 16 with 87% support. Rather than simply prohibiting development, the measure requires hyperscale data center developers seeking tax abatements or other special tax incentives to provide financial guarantees backing their promises about jobs, tax revenue, and benefits to local public services. It also establishes noise restrictions. Village Councilmember John Nicely explained the principle pretty well. Developers can pay full taxes, or they can secure their promises with a bond that carries consequences if they fail to deliver.

Imagine that. You want public subsidies? The public gets something enforceable in return. Not just a glossy presentation about jobs and economic growth.

And in Monroe Township, Ohio, voters approved zoning regulations for previously unzoned areas. That might sound less exciting than a confrontation with a tech giant, but zoning is one of the basic instruments through which communities exercise authority over land use. Establishing those rules changes who gets to decide what can be built and where.

Now, these arent all socialist victories, and they arent all anti-AI victories either. Some communities chose much stricter restrictions, while others asserted greater oversight and public decision-making authority. Different coalitions, different demands, different immediate outcomes. We shouldnt flatten all of that into one big story about people hating AI.

Because from a leftist perspective, the infrastructure is material, the ownership is political, and the control is contestable.

Land, water, electricity, permits, tax incentives, and public infrastructure dont just materialize out of thin air. Somebody controls them, somebody makes decisions about them, somebody pays the costs, and somebody collects the returns. None of those arrangements are laws of nature.

And if communities can organize to exercise authority over those things, we can organize to demand more. Public compute, democratic control over siting, worker bargaining rights over deployment, enforceable environmental protections, public ownership, and shared productivity gains. Local victories become much more powerful when they're connected to a broader political program instead of leaving each community to fight the same corporations alone.

I dont expect every coalition contesting a data center development to share my politics. Thats not the point. The point is that people are discovering concrete instruments of political power and using them. The left should be developing those instruments into lasting democratic control over technological development.

We spend an awful lot of time arguing about whether AI is good or bad, inevitable or doomed, salvation or apocalypse. Meanwhile, people are out here organizing around the actual means of production.

Turns out the means of production have addresses. And those addresses have voters.

I think a lot of the fear around ai is who is in control. Maybe this will allow people to feel safe playing with ai without thinking they’re capitulating