Amazon最近跟随Microsoft的领导，称在与地方政府谈判数据中心时
TechCrunch股权播客最新一集中，Sean O'Kane、Rebecen Bellan和我讨论了Amazon的公告
Rebecca有点怀疑最近一连串的数据中心暂停将会产生持久的效果，特别是因为暂停只持续一两年
而Sean则认为
“我们通过许多争议和对AI和数据中心的反弹，看到这个行业只是做一个非常糟糕的工作
继续阅读预览我们的对话，编辑长度和清晰度。
Sean O-Kane：这是一件有趣的事情，我理解为什么他们不把它放在前台，但对我来说，这是技术产业目前面临的众多问题的根源
有许多事情可能是称，人们是否应该担心数据中心对其财产价值，电费，该地区用水的影响，以及那些东西是否是真正的问题，膨胀的问题等等。
我认为，其中很多只是真正回到了这样一个事实：其中许多项目基本上是秘密谈判的。 有时他们正在[与公众商谈]它是一个数据中心
这是与科技产业长期存在的问题。 我总是回到2010年代中期 Uber的扩张非常快。 Uber是真正使用这一战术的公司之一，当时它与地方政府合作。 尤其我记得我当时在The Verge工作，我们有一个自由职业者写了一个故事，关于奥兰多以外的一个城市
整个事情都是秘密谈判的不仅如此，它的脸部令人沮丧，而且，由于这个秘密，你可以看到Uber 变得非常舒服要求很多其他的东西，太。
因此，需要更多的这样的。 我很高兴Amazon这样做。 但人们现在相当固执。
Rebecca Bellan：是的，我好奇这将会产生什么效果，以及是否会导致社群成功拖延，我所听到的一些人，他们每天与数据中心打交道，这些暂停令中有很多被通过，包括最近在旧金山
未来两、三、四、五年，由于从区划到资金的诸多原因，所有建设工程将大规模推迟。 当然，如果回击继续进行，那么它可能会有效果，但我经常想知道这种政治回击会对此产生多大影响。
Anthony Ha：我最熟悉的暂停令是在纽约。 我相信这是一年的暂停，[从技术上讲，要等到国家完成环境审查过程，预计需要一年时间。]
这里面已经有一些摇摆的房间。 通常，它们被设定为：“我们并不认为[数据中心]是坏的，让我们不要这样做。 我们必须花时间研究这个问题。 这给了他们很多余地，我们爱它。”
但你们可以知道，试图建立这些数据中心的人很担心，这就是为什么你们有来自特朗普或大卫·萨克斯这样的人的这些无头的微博。 只有时间才能说明[社区]抵抗的长短和深度，但我确实认为他们很担心。
Microsoft今年早些时候也曾发表类似声明，我认为自动取消NDA不会让反对这些数据中心的人们像“很好，让我们去做吧。 我加入了。 但我认为对话的开始是“嗯，我们甚至不知道你在做什么，因为你已经秘密地谈判了所有这些事情。 ” 因此，这确实是一个很好的第一步。
谢恩：这里更大的问题只是一个沟通问题，对不对？我认为这是一个贯穿整个科技行业的问题，但现在它尤其尖锐，因为我们生活在“直接”和“你不需要与媒体交谈
我并不想击败那匹马，因为我们在媒体上，但是，我们通过许多争议和对AI和数据中心的反弹，看到这个行业只是做了一个非常糟糕的工作来解释自己，并且他们显然和不断地对这样一个事实感到沮丧，即大多数人无法想象这样一个对他们有用的世界。 这是因为，很多时候，[技术]能力并不存在，部分原因是他们解释得不好。
我上星期写了一个故事，讲述自从我们真正听到特斯拉用自己的鼓来鼓起自己的鼓来建设它最初所谓的“可持续丰度”之后，尤其考虑到他们这整个多页的PDF在宣布这段时间里铺设出来，读起来像LLM胡说八道
安东尼(Anthony)：这让我想到的一件事只是叙事和这种感觉，在一段时间里，它真的感觉自己被压在我们的喉咙里了，这个想法是，“这是不可避免的，这是AI驱动的未来，上船或者你只是被抛在后面。 ”
显然，未来正在以许多方式前进，但从几个关键方面来看，存在着这些障碍。 我真正喜欢的就是这种“不，你必须为此辩护”的感觉。 你不能只说“这是未来
具体关于特斯拉和丰量的事情，我震惊的并不是他们还没有想出丰量的定义，而是他们一开始的承诺。 我认为，我们与特斯拉的关系是多么奇怪，尤其是那些为伊隆而投资、骑马或骑马的人，[已经] 这家公司会卖很多车吗？而是重新塑造社会的愿景。 或至少
本文由 AI图鉴自动抓取并翻译，版权归原作者所有；如需查看原文请点下方链接。
Amazon recently followed Microsoft’s lead and said it will no longer use nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) while negotiating with local governments over data centers.
On the latest episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, Sean O’Kane, Rebeccan Bellan and I discussed Amazon’s announcement, which came in the middle of a longer blog post making the case that data centers are actually good for communities.
Rebecca was a bit skeptical that the recent spate of data center moratoriums will have a lasting effect, especially since the moratoriums only last for a year or two and “these data centers aren’t coming online for the next two, three, four, five years,” though I countered that data center backers definitely seem worried.
Sean, meanwhile, suggested that a big reason for the backlash is the industry’s poor communication.
“We’ve seen, through a lot of the controversy and backlash to AI and data centers, that the industry just does a really poor job explaining itself, and that they are obviously and constantly frustrated with the fact that most people can’t envision a world in which this stuff is useful for them,” he said.
Keep reading for a preview of our conversation, edited for length and clarity.
Sean O’Kane: It’s an interesting thing that it was sort of buried in the blog post and part of a larger story that Amazon’s clearly trying to tell. I guess I understand why they weren’t putting it in the foreground, but to me, this is at the root of so many of the problems that the tech industry currently faces when it comes to AI broadly, but data centers in particular.
There are so many things that could be said about whether or not people should be worried about the effect that data centers have on their property values, on their electricity bills, on their water usage in the area, and whether or not those things are real problems, inflated problems, etc. etc.
I think so much of that just really goes back to the fact that a lot of these projects are being negotiated essentially in secret. Sometimes they’re being negotiated [with the public knowing] that it’s a data center, but just not knowing who’s actually going to use it or occupy it at any point.
This is a long-standing issue with the tech industry. I always go back to the mid-2010s when Uber was expanding really fast. Uber was one of the companies that really used this tactic a ton when it came to working with local governments. In particular, I remember I was working at The Verge at the time and we had a freelancer write a story about a city outside of Orlando where Uber was trying to negotiate tax subsidies to subsidize rides for people to use public transit after the Uber trip.
The whole thing was negotiated in secret. And not only that, which was frustrating on its face, but also, because of the secrecy, you could just see Uber getting really comfortable with asking for a lot of other stuff, too.
So there needs to be more of this. I’m glad Amazon’s doing this. We’ll see if it actually does have any positive effect, but people are pretty entrenched right now.
Rebecca Bellan: Yeah, I’m curious about what effect this will have and whether it will lead to communities successfully delaying or or killing any infrastructure that the companies need to build. What I’ve heard from some people I’ve spoken to, who deal with data centers every day, a lot of these moratoriums that are getting passed — and there are a significant number of them, including one recently in San Francisco, which is pretty ironic — but they’re only for like a year or two years.
But these data centers aren’t coming online for the next two, three, four, five years. All of the buildouts are going to be massively delayed for a number of reasons from zoning to funding. Of course, if the pushback keeps going, then it might have an effect, but I often wonder just how much of an effect this political pushback is having on this.
Anthony Ha: The moratorium I’m most familiar with is the one in New York. I believe it’s a one year moratorium, and that’s on permits for large projects. [Technically, it’s until the state finalizes an environmental review process, which is expected to take a year.]
So already, there’s some wiggle room within that. And often, they’re framed as: “It’s not like we think [data centers are] bad, let’s not do this. It’s [that] we need to take the time to study this.” Which gives them a lot of room to say later on, “Actually, we’ve decided this is great. We love it.”
But you can tell that the people trying to build these data centers are worried, which is why you have these unhinged tweets from people like Trump or David Sacks. Only time will tell in terms how long and how deep that [community] resistance is, but I do think they are worried.
It’s also noteworthy that Microsoft, earlier this year, made a similar announcement about not using NDAs. I don’t think that getting rid of the NDAs automatically is going to make the people who opposed these data centers be like, “Great, let’s let’s do it. I’m in.” But I think the beginning of that conversation is, “Well, we don’t even know what the heck you’re doing, because you’ve negotiated all this stuff in secret.” So it does seem like a good first step.
Sean: The larger problem here is just a communication problem, right? This is a problem I think that goes across the entire tech industry, but it’s especially acute now, because we’re living in the era of “going direct” and “you don’t need to talk to the media, the media is dead,” etc.
And I’m not trying to beat that horse, because we’re in the media and [we] think we’re still relevant. But we’ve seen, through a lot of the controversy and backlash to AI and data centers, that the industry just does a really poor job explaining itself, and that they are obviously and constantly frustrated with the fact that most people can’t envision a world in which this stuff is useful for them. And that’s because, a lot of time, the [technological] ability’s not there, and in part because they’re just not explaining it well.
I wrote a story last week about how it’s been a year since we’ve really heard Tesla beating its own drum about building towards what it originally was calling “sustainable abundance” and is now “amazing abundance” as its mission statement. It’s just wild to me that we’re a year into that, and the company still doesn’t have a very good definition of it, especially considering that they released this whole multi-page PDF laying it out when they announced this, and even Tesla’s biggest fans criticized Elon Musk and Tesla for how unspecific it was. It read like LLM nonsense.
Anthony: One of the things this has made me think about is just the narrative and this sense that for a while, it really felt like it was being pushed down our throats — this idea of, “This is inevitable, this AI-driven future, and get on board or you’re just going to be left behind.”
Obviously that future is barreling ahead in a lot of ways, but in a few key ways, there have been these obstacles. What I’ve really liked about that is this sense of “No, you actually have to make the case for it.” You can’t just say, “This is the future, shut up.”
And then specifically about Tesla and the abundance thing, what was shocking to me is not so much that they haven’t come up with a definition of abundance, but that that was a promise that they were making in the first place. I think [that] speaks to how strange our relationship to Tesla, and particularly the people who are invested and ride-or-die for Elon, [has become.] It’s not about, is this company going to sell a lot of cars? It’s about this vision for remaking society. Or at least, that’s what they’re being sold.
Auto-fetched and translated by AI Atlas. All rights belong to the original author.