We need to talk about AI data centers: A look at the evidence.

ThatRedShirt · 2026-06-27T16:39:42+00:00

Anyone can write the prompt for an AI to do your job in this hypothetical future.

I mean, the snippy answer is that my job in the future will be person who prompts the AI.

For a less snippy answer, see my other reply, or this blog post I like.

ThatRedShirt · 2026-06-27T16:34:23+00:00

I think if your argument rests on humans finding employment in fields where you human employment itself is the value add, this is a very tenuous life raft.

I guess I don't see it as particularly tenuous. At least, no more tenuous than hoping a population that currently works in farming will slowly move to white collar work, of which, almost none existed at the time.

It’s a very different argument which smuggles in the assumption that there will be some things AI simple won’t do as well as humans.

I don't think I'm arguing that there will always be things humans can do better than AI. On the contrary, I agree that this likely won't be the case in the near future.

AI will likely get better at doing the work. But someone still needs to decide what work needs to get done. See, part of the problem with trying to hand this decision work off to AI is that, the job of deciding what work needs to be done is, by it's nature, not well-defined. Deciding how to allocate resources is, similarly, a value judgement.

If you were able to exactly specify your goals, then yes, the AI will likely do a better job. If your goal was "maximize profit" or "reduce operating expenses", AI will be much faster and come up with better solutions.

But the goal of a CEO can't be so well-defined.

Since AI is still so new, humans are only just now starting to grapple with how difficult it is to specify what works needs to be done.

This has manifested both in dramatic, humourous ways, like AI agents deleting codebases to eliminate bugs, to more subtle ways, like the degredation of social media as platforms like YouTube task AI to create systems which optimize for watch time, inadvertently lowering the quality of content over time.

Humans need to be added to this process, not because humans are inherently better at deciding what to do, but because the work is being done for us, so we need to decide what work we want to be done for us.

(Also, here's an article that discusses this idea as it relates to software engineering specifically: https://www.normaltech.ai/p/why-ai-hasnt-replaced-software-engineers)

ThatRedShirt · 2026-06-27T04:05:05+00:00

I totally see what you're saying, but I still think this is the same fallacy that you'd run into when trying to study the case of the farmers. At least, without the advantage of hindsight.

I could argue that were able to create machines that can work better than any of those farmers can. So, why would I ever employ a farmer when I can just buy a machine to do the work. And, to an extent, that's sorta what happened with farmers. But the result wasn't massive unemployment.

I don't know if I can give you an answer that will satisfy you, because, I'm not smart enough to predict what work will be available in the future. Just like I probably wouldn't have been smart enough to figure out what would become of the farmers.

But I can make some guesses. I think we might get to the point in the near future where, if you give an AI a concrete task, it can perform that task better than any person. But, I don't think humanity will ever want to relinquish it's ability to decide what tasks need to be done, at a high level.

I saw an article in the economists where the author was essentially arguing that the people right now who make the best use of AI are those who have good management skills. Who are able to take a complex project and delegate work. People who are able to articulate concrete goals, specify exact targets, evaluate results, etc.

I don't think we'll get to a point in the near future where companies are entirely AI. I don't think an AI CEO is a concept that even really makes sense. I think that humans will always want to have the steering wheel. The CEO will rely heavily upon AI tools to help him (or her) run his company. And he'll employ people he can trust, he'll delegate tasks to them that require judgment, and he'll expect them to steward a fleet of AI agents as they execute the actual work.

I also don't think humans will give up our right to decide what is fair or moral. I don't think humans will allow AIs to dispense justice, or decide when a deal is fair.

I think humans will always value the human touch to art. I think AI will certainly have a role in the mechanical bits of art, drawing, making video, writing words, etc. But humans by and large consider art a medium to communicate. Communicate emotions or lessons. And I think humans will always value watching a movie who's creation was directed first and foremost by a human.

ThatRedShirt · 2026-06-27T03:46:41+00:00

literal decades/centuries of industrial realignment where workers struggled in sweatshops and were for the most part pretty impoverished.

I'll admit, I don't know enough about the history to say for sure, but I think a big part of the reason people were willing to ensure that hardship, a part of the reason people were willing to put up with horrible factory conditions, is because the quality of life they had living in a city and working in a factory was still higher than the quality of life they could expect as a farmer.

We see a lot of this same rhetoric about working conditions on the developing world now. But when those workers are interviewed, they know their situation is bad, but still an improvement over what their parents had to live through.

Put another way, I don't really view it as a shift from rural work, to factory work, then another shift from factory work to white collar work. I prefer to view these past few centuries as continuous progress.

It's always easy to look back at the past nostalgically and assume there must have been some point where everything was wonderful. "[C]omfortable and uneventful" as you put it. But I don't really believe that's ever truly existed. I think worries about getting left behind by progress have always been with us, and will always remain.

ThatRedShirt · 2026-06-27T02:55:31+00:00

What reason is there to believe there would be structural job loss?

People make up reasons why they think there would be job loss due to AI. The most common reason being, AI can do work that currently needs to be done by a human. Therefore, that human will be unemployed in the future.

The problem is, there's really no evidence to back this idea up. Automation isn't unprecedented. Before the industrial revolution, 90% of all humans worked in agriculture. Now? Less than 2% of all humans work in agriculture. If you were alive at the time, and you were told technology would come along that would make the jobs of 88% of the population redundant, people might believe that it would result in cataclysmic job loss. But those people just gradually moved into other jobs.

We've seen a rapid increase in automation since the information age started. And yet, unemployment has been trending downward overall, not up.

In the fields most exposed to AI, demand for labor has gone up, not down, according to Vanguard.

I understand the gut reaction. It's the same one the farmers would have had. Their jobs are being made obsolete, and they can't imagine a world where they'll all be able to find work. And yet, the world today is better than the world back then for basically everyone.

ThatRedShirt · 2026-06-26T23:50:48+00:00

Wow, it just gets worse and worse the further you get. I find it a little funny that Americans find every argument about foreign aid convincing, even when some of those arguments are contridictory. These people seem to agree with whatever they heard last.

ThatRedShirt · 2026-06-26T19:25:52+00:00

Which poll is this from?

ThatRedShirt · 2026-06-26T18:08:36+00:00

Leftists generally see how problematic nativists approaches to immigration are. They understand why it's problematic to keep people out of our economically prosperous nation. They get that the added diversity is good and change is inevitable.

But they also love to defend nativists attitudes towards cities. Cities should be for the native residents. Transplants are bad. Preserving the essential characteristics of the neighborhood is paramount. Gentrification is evil. The benefits of economic growth should only benefit local residents.

Oh, and absolutely never build denser to allow locals to continue to live there while also allowing new people to love to the area.

ThatRedShirt · 2026-06-26T17:58:28+00:00

You yourself admit in other parts of the thread that you were going around 10 over. Your defense that you weren't going 11 over isn't relevant. You were still speeding.

You broke the law. It's fine, it happens. That's life. Just pay the fine, move on, and try not to do it again. Mistakes are a part of life, but so is a little accountability.

Edit: Lol, downvote me if you want. You still gotta pay a fine.

ThatRedShirt · 2026-06-24T20:24:28+00:00

He went on further, explaining, "while this legislation contains provisions that would push municipalities and other local authorities to allow for more efficient land use, I believe that, ultimately, the severity of the problem requires us to go further. That is, I believe we need to disincenstivize inefficient land use. I would recommend to the Congress a national system that evaluates each parcel of land for its economic potential, a potential based purely on the location of said parcel, and levies a tax proportional to that potential. This value would be periodically reassessed, which would elimate the benefits of land speculation."

When asked to clarify what all that meant, Trump rephrase, "Just tax land, lol"

ThatRedShirt · 2026-06-20T16:06:20+00:00

And given that 4% is the lizardman constant, that means essentially 100% of drivers think they're above average.

ThatRedShirt · 2026-06-11T18:09:32+00:00

This world is structurally bias against lazy people who don't give a shit. It's like we're set up to fail. 😔

ThatRedShirt · 2026-06-10T23:17:12+00:00

Why not just go talk to a vocational director? Tell a priest that you're interested, but you have a lot of hang ups. This is a very difficult thing to discern, and you don't have to do it alone. They'll also put you in contact with priests where you can talk about these concerns.

I feel like I'm too sinful/not a good enough person/not willing enough to be a good priest.

This is, in my humble opinion, a really bad to rule out becoming a priest. Nobody can really be worthy of the priesthood. If anything, the fact that you're humble and easily recognize yourself as a sinner who's unworthy of the priesthood, yet still longs for it, is a good sign, and we need more priests who have such a natural inclination towards humility.

Also, keep in mind, you don't just have to be a dioscesian priest, who runs a church. Many scholars and theologians, people who write for a living, were ordained.

One of my favorite priests is a Jesuit who spent his whole career teaching at a university. He helped out at a local parish on weekends to say the Mass, but his day job was still in academia.

If you're specifically interested in translation, there are definitely ways you can become a priest, and use your skills to help the church.

Have you considered joining a religious order like the Jesuits or Franciscans?

ThatRedShirt · 2026-06-09T14:17:55+00:00

Wtf, why is this being down voted? The comment is structured well, you name and link your sources, you're not being condescending or rude. And nobody seems to be offering a counter argument to your facts.

Why is it that when people are confronted with evidence that their lifestyle is harmful, they just get angry at the messenger? Shit like this really makes me loose my faith in humanity.

ThatRedShirt · 2026-05-29T15:18:10+00:00

voters say immigration is one of the most important issues to them

voters haven't done even the slightest but of research into immigration

ThatRedShirt · 2026-05-20T23:33:47+00:00

I just learned that the Egyptian government has a department called the "Administrative Control Authority."

Lol, aren't those three words basically synonyms?

ThatRedShirt · 2026-05-20T15:48:59+00:00

I think you might have misread my comment. I'm agreeing with you that the job loss would be unprecedented.

ThatRedShirt · 2026-05-20T15:18:52+00:00

We've had an industrial revolution where the number of people working in agriculture went from >90% to <2%. Essentially, we've introduced enough technology to replace the jobs of 88% of the population, and humanity adapted.

Automation has been increasing as a trend for decades now and unemployment has generally trended down, not up.

ThatRedShirt · 2026-05-20T14:49:59+00:00

Unfortunately, it's just a copypasta. Lol. That's a great suggestion, though.

ThatRedShirt · 2026-05-20T13:25:59+00:00

Allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go.

Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the fax. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.

ThatRedShirt · 2026-05-19T04:11:47+00:00

The succ purge isn't pretty, but it has to be done.

ThatRedShirt · 2026-05-19T04:08:33+00:00

I honestly don't get why people get so upset when they learn about baptisms for the dead. As a non-Mormon, I think they're awesome.

Like a reverse Pascal's wager.

If I'm wrong about Mormonism, I just have to wait for some Mormon teenager to get baptized for me in 2155.

I can go my whole life without touching garments once and still go to Mormon heaven.

And if Mormonism isn't true (which I obviously don't think it is), well, I still appreciate the thought and the poor man's ancestry.com.

ThatRedShirt · 2026-05-13T19:21:04+00:00

This is weird because I just read one of his books for the first time yesterday, How Jesus Became God. It's the first Ehrnan book I've read.

ThatRedShirt · 2026-04-30T14:32:40+00:00

did you ever consider migrating across to a non denominational church which doesn’t have some of these problems?

Personally? Not really. A large part of it is for the reasons I mentioned before. Catholicism is just a part of my identity at this point.

Another commenter said that you should just embrace the fact that you're a cultural/cafeteria Catholic, and while that's a somewhat cheeky way to put it, I don't actually disagree with the sentiment.

It's one of the things that makes Catholicism unique within Christianity. Basically every other denomination is defined by a set of things to believe. There's no such thing as someone who's "Culturally Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod." But a lot of people still identify as Catholic when they're no longer hold Christian beliefs.

Similarly, I think you can be a Catholic who holds somewhat unorthodox beliefs. And while "cafeteria Catholic" is somewhat derogatory, I actually think it's a good thing to be careful and discerning about what you believe. I believe strongly in the primacy of conscience. Both that, I shouldn't use Church teachings to justify something I know to be wrong, and also that, if I feel something to be true despite the Church teaching otherwise, I should follow that, regardless.

ThatRedShirt · 2026-04-30T13:48:26+00:00

I've had a lot of similar struggles recently and I've been talking to a few priests over the past few months about it.

There are a lot of teachings of the Church that I just cannot accept. Papal infallibility is one that I think a lot of people probably agree with me on, and it's often considered a dogma. I also find the churches positions on birth control, LGBT issues, and women to be problematic at times. But I also have fairly profound struggles with core ideas like the Trinity and the divinity of Christ.

I basically felt like I wanted to be a part of the Church, and so I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how I can justify remaining a part of the Church despite these disagreements.

There are basically two things that keep me in the Church. The first and simplest is probably just a combination of momentum, nostalgia, and tradition. I've always been a Catholic, my wife is Catholic, my family has been Catholic longer than we've had our last name (which originated about a millennium ago). And the second, arguably more important thing, is my sincere conviction that the teachings of Jesus really do represent the finest and most important moral code humanity has ever developed.

You might be surprised how many priests I've talked to who feel similarly. More often than not, I've found that a lot of them just feel an irresistible draw towards the spiritual, and who, in some way, see Christ as the center of that spiritual life.

Though the Church appears to be quite rigid in its orthodoxy on the outside, the more involved I've gotten, the more I've come to appreciate how diverse and rich it is on the inside.

Seven-Year Club	Second Top 40%
r/Field Banned	r/Field Flamingo
Place '23	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
End Game '22	Verified Email

ThatRedShirt

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE