Hacker News Reader

Comment by throw10920 | Hacker News Reader

> That's a reductive take in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. Of course people will resist commercial developments that'll increase the cost of one of the most essential resources everyone uses day-to-day

Your argument conveniently ignores that electricity is tiny fraction of the average American's budget, which is far more heavily weighted toward housing, gas, and groceries. This argument is extremely tenuous.

> for the sake of shareholder value

This is emotionally manipulative and without substance. Data centers are being built because there's demand for them from people who want to use AI, like me. These data centers drive down the cost of AI, which is valuable to me, and to society. The fact that it also happens to increase "shareholder value" is irrelevant.

View on HN

> Your argument conveniently ignores that electricity is tiny fraction

You assume people's psychological resistance to increased cost is entirely based on the proportional impact of those cost increases. Yes, housing/gas/groceries are much larger portions of the increase in cost, but datacenters are much more visible than poor foreign policy or starting new conflicts with overseas energy producers. Also, electricity traditionally has much less cost variation than gas/housing/groceries.

> This is emotionally manipulative and without substance. Data centers are being built because there's demand for them from people who want to use AI, like me.

At my company's internal conference we had a rep from one of our partners come speak, and he emphasized that a significant value-add of our company's relationship to our partners is that we're much more tech-forward. he went on to say "Execs in [partner industry] don't know what AI is or what it does, but they know that they want it."

We're seeing AI features being bolted into every application under the sun, whether it actually adds functionality or not. I think you bear a significant burden of proof to the claim that the demand for datacenters is in turn driven by consumer demand for AI, and company boards losing their minds over what they think AI can do and demanding their R&D divisions sink millions of dollars into AI spend to try and capitalize on their dreams.

I'm reminded of Bitcoin: for a hot minute every startup was talking about blockchain and GPUs were getting snapped up by miners left and right because of what people imagined the value could be. That's what I'm getting at when I say "shareholder value:" these developments seem to be less about what value a company is _actually_ producing (& thus the inherent cost-of-goods-sold demand), and more about the _possibility_ of what value a company _could_ produce.

> You assume people's psychological resistance to increased cost is entirely based on the proportional impact of those cost increases. Yes, housing/gas/groceries are much larger portions of the increase in cost, but datacenters are much more visible than poor foreign policy or starting new conflicts with overseas energy producers. Also, electricity traditionally has much less cost variation than gas/housing/groceries.

This is a good point. I see that I misunderstood your original argument - I thought you were claiming that the increase was going to be financially meaningful, rather than what you actually said, which was the perception of and response to the increase. My apologies. Thank you for your thoughtful response!

> I thought you were claiming that the increase was going to be financially meaningful

tbf, I didn't state the psychological thesis up front either :)

> Data centers are being built because there's demand for them from people who want to use AI, like me

No they aren't

They're being built so shareholders can profit off of people like you. The fact that you benefit from it does not actually factor in any way aside from the fact that you will pay them for that benefit

They aren't benevolently trying to help you out, they just want your money.

The fact that you want AI and think it will help you and society is actually what is irrelevant. If they weren't confident it would make them money it would not be built no matter how beneficial it would be.

There can be multiple effects for a given action. The main objection I have to this argument is the idea that the only beneficiaries of any corporate decision are the shareholders.

>> Data centers are being built because there's demand for them from people who want to use AI, like me

> No they aren't

You literally said they are building data centers to cater to demand later on in your own comment:

> If they weren't confident it would make them money it would not be built

There you go. Your own point debunked by your own words.

> They aren't benevolently trying to help you out

I didn't say anything about the owners building stuff out of charity or benevolence. Are you responding to the wrong comment? Yours is more-or-less irrelevant to mine in addition to being self-contradictory.

Come on bud. You claimed

> The fact that it (building data centers) also happens to increase "shareholder value" is irrelevant

It's not irrelevant. It is the primary reason they are being built

Your understanding about the cause and effect around why data centers are being built is completely backwards

Please own up to the fact that you self-contradicted yourself in your own comment by first claiming that "No they aren't" and then "If they weren't confident it would make them money it would not be built".

> It's not irrelevant. It is the primary reason they are being built

...and without any implications, that fact is irrelevant. Do you understand what relevance means? It means that there's meaning, implication. You haven't given a single follow-on implication from that hypothesis that actually matters to the discussion.

> Your understanding about the cause and effect around why data centers are being built is completely backwards

No, this is just factually false.

Fact: for datacenters, without market demand, without a buyer, shareholder value cannot possibly be generated.

So, first there is a market, and then companies act on it to generate shareholder value.

You're living in a world detached from reality where "shareholder value" exists as its own separate entity that can generate market demand.

You need to take a high-school level economics course so that you don't make objectively incorrect statements like this.

> and without any implications, that fact is irrelevant

If you think people's motivations are irrelevant then we just live in different worlds, and there's no point continuing

> If you think people's motivations are irrelevant

I never said that peoples' motivations are irrelevant in general. Just that they're irrelevant in this specific case. You're putting words in my mouth, which clearly indicates malice.

> then we just live in different worlds, and there's no point continuing

We do. I live in reality, where most people understand basic facts of economics, causality is meaningful, and you still haven't actually provided a reason why you think that the motivations matter, so as far as the rest of us in the real world know, they don't. You've had three comments to point that out, and you haven't, so the reasonable conclusion is that you don't have a reason, and you're running away to avoid that intellectual dissonance.

Some people on HN live in an ivory tower. Every "tiny fraction" is a big deal to someone working two jobs to pay rent.

> ... to someone working two jobs to pay rent.

Or two jobs and a "side-gig" or three, and still barely "squeaking by", and still unable to afford health care or any other such "luxuries" of life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com