Why public opinion turned on AI | The Gray Area

Honestly just get rid of the following features for AI: create videos, diagrams, pictures, coding projects, video games, etc. The public should only have access to an “intelligent encyclopedia”. That’s it..

These concerns around Data Centers feel secondary to the ones around Humans remaining the Center of Data… just sayin… 😉

The most revealing thing in this conversation is that it names concentrated wealth, labour displacement, private ownership, public subsidy, weakened unions, democratic powerlessness and a “permanent underclass,” but somehow never names capitalism.

That omission matters.

AI isn’t independently deciding to weaken workers and enrich owners. Capitalism is deciding how AI gets built, who controls the infrastructure, which jobs get automated, who absorbs the costs and who captures the gains.

The data centre fight makes that visible. Communities are expected to provide land, water, electricity, tax breaks and grid capacity so private firms can build systems designed to reduce labour costs and consolidate market power. When people object, their resistance gets packaged as “AI populism,” as though the public reaction is the strange phenomenon rather than the industrial project being imposed on them.

The “permanent underclass” discussion should have forced the ownership question. If a small class owns the models, compute, energy contracts, platforms and robotics, then mass automation doesn’t create abundance for everyone. It creates abundance for owners and dependency for everyone else.

UBI may soften that outcome, but it can also become hush money. A population stripped of bargaining power gets a stipend while the productive system remains privately owned.

The China comparison doesn’t escape the problem. China has a state-directed form of capitalism. It can coordinate infrastructure more effectively and force firms to serve national strategy, but workers still don’t democratically control production. The difference is who disciplines capital, not whether ordinary people own the future being built.

The real political divide shouldn’t be pro-AI versus anti-AI.

It should be:

Who owns machine intelligence?

Who decides what it’s for?

Who gets the productivity gains?

Who has the power to refuse its deployment?

As long as capitalism defines the horizon, every proposed “social contract” begins after ownership has already been settled.

That’s the trap.

Everyone is debating how society should adapt to privately owned intelligence when the prior question is why intelligence built from public research, collective knowledge and humanity’s accumulated culture should be privately owned at all.

Ran out of patience, and saw our tolerance misunderstood as eager acceptance.

Turned on AI? Who was for AI? Never seen a good article saying AI was wanted

I was like oh, interesting video but at 7:30 I had to stop. No they will not launch huge amount of AI datacenters to space. Space launches are incredibly expensive per weight, the AI hardware becomes outdated in few years and space is incredibly hostile environment for computer hardware. How is anyone going to maintain the hardware, replace failed components, opgrade the parts when they become outdated in few years. New space launches are also very expensive, so no, there’s no way that’s going to really happen outside of few publicity stunts.

Ai, israel and epstein bring the people of America together. (*no civil war… I have hope in my fellow Americans that we won't play into the roles written in the script.)

17:25 Permanent Underclass already exists.
You have to live in a US costal city to consider it a possible future outcome,
And not how more than 80% of humanity lives.