@cozy said in 1984, Socialism and AI:

Popper, who the world loves to ignore

So many snarky ways to respond to this. I can't choose one.

@cozy said in 1984, Socialism and AI:

But, I do think that the framing of the bill resonates with the logic of The Party in 1984, and I get the feeling that disagreeing with a national moratorium that puts a central body in control of it would violate the moral language (Ingsoc) therein.

What is 'it' referring to here?

What do I think? Moratorium? That's cute.

1. Resource Asymmetry

You suggest that local communities can adequately negotiate how data centers fit into their "local economy and culture." In reality, local municipal governments are drastically outmatched by trillion-dollar tech corporations. A local city council or zoning board, often composed of part-time officials with limited budgets, doesn’t have the legal firepower, technical expertise, or financial stamina to effectively negotiate with companies like Google, Microsoft, or Meta. Without federal or state backing, local governments can be, and are, routinely outmaneuvered and overpowered by corporate lawyers or blindsided by sophisticated lobbying.

2. "Race to the Bottom"/ Spillover Effects

Relying on only local control for massive infrastructure creates a corporate "race to the bottom." Here’s what I mean...If Town A demands strict environmental protections and fair taxation for a data center, the tech company will simply move to Town B, which might offer massive tax breaks and lax regulations just to secure a few jobs. Going further, AI data centers consume MASSIVE amounts of electricity and water. If one town approves a massive data center, it can strain the power grid (we gotta play this game soon!) or deplete reservoirs for the entire surrounding region. Localized decision-making fails to account for these massive issues that don’t respect borders.

3. Civic Engagement

From reading your post I gather that you assume a highly engaged, rationally debating local populace. In the real world, local civic engagement is famously dysfunctional. Local elections often have shitty voter turnout, meaning decisions are usually driven by a tiny, vocal minority. Also, local boards are highly susceptible to corporate interests buying influence over local officials or the paralyzing “Not In My Back Yard” stuff, where communities reject infrastructure based on irrational fears or property values rather than the merits you argue for.

4. Complex Regulation is NOT "Totalitarianism"

You equate federal intervention (in this case a national moratorium) with the elitist, mind-controlling totalitarianism of 1984. This is a crazy oversimplification that ignores the scale of the technology. AI and the infrastructure required to run it are matters of national security, macroeconomic stability, and national energy. I don’t think it’s a good idea to leave the regulation of nuclear power plants or aerospace engineering strictly to local town halls, because the technical complexity necessitates federal "intermediaries" (past administrations employed experts and specialized agencies). Acknowledging that specialized experts are needed to regulate highly complex systems, in my view, is not treating ordinary people as "dumb" it is a pragmatic and functional necessity of modern civilization.

5. Paradox of Rejecting Intermediaries

You quoted Brivael Le Pogam, who says socialism and centralized power rely on an "intermediary class," going further as to say that AI might destroy this class. However, you fail to recognize that tech billionaires and corporate CEOs are themselves an immensely powerful, unelected intermediary class. By stripping the elected federal government of its power to regulate or pause these companies, you aren’t returning power to the "common people" practically speaking, you are just transferring that power from elected federal officials to unelected tech executives.

In summary...

I just see your view of the "town hall" as very 18th-century, and not mapping onto 21st-century realities. While local input is good, relying solely on local critical thinking to regulate super advanced, massively resource-intensive, transnational technology leaves ordinary people more vulnerable to corporate exploitation, not less.