logo
Utah pursuing AI data centers is pure stupidity

Utah pursuing AI data centers is pure stupidity

Yahoo19 hours ago

Construction proceeds at a data center in Eagle Mountain, Utah, in 2021. Across the country, some state lawmakers are concerned that the growing data center industry is creating a surge in demand for new electricity and grid infrastructure. ()
Since the legislature established the Utah Inland Port Authority (UIPA) in 2018, UIPA has demonstrated an ability to spend millions of tax payer money on one bad idea after another. The latest is to bring artificial intelligence (AI) data centers to their Wasatch Front project areas. UIPA is being caught up in a 21st century gold rush, but like the one in 1848, it will turn out to be mostly fool's gold.
Nationwide, state and local officials are fast tracking data center permits in their communities, foolishly giving them enormous tax breaks. Most of the biggest data centers are being built by the mega-billionaire tech bros like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg, the very same people who are already hoarding unprecedented wealth and power. Much of the impetus for these data centers has degenerated into a race between these mega-billionaires to see who ultimately dominates the holy grail of computing — 'artificial general intelligence' (AGI), essentially human brain level sophisticated computation. Data center construction has doubled just since 2022, and the only result is further concentration of wealth and power at the top of big tech.
The tech bros race to rule AGI is the crown jewel in their pathologic ethos of 'move fast and break things.' Numerous experts are warning about the existential danger of AGI. It will render many jobs obsolete, it represents a grave national security threat, and it blurs the lines between truth and fiction. This next level AI creates new content by analyzing and mimicking patterns from vast amounts of existing data. Its uses are far beyond helping students to cheat on writing papers. It's being used to spread climate misinformation, exacerbate housing discrimination of Black communities, create increasingly sophisticated phishing scams, and assisting state and corporate surveillance, monitoring workers' every move. AI is stymieing worker critical thinking and not delivering productivity gains.
A State Department report concluded AI could pose an 'extinction-level' threat, comparing it to the threat of nuclear weapons if not regulated. AI workers are concerned about the irresponsibility, and perverse motives of these tech companies' executives.
Our environment is another one of the things they are 'breaking.' Data centers already rank in the top 10 water-consuming industries. Data centers can consume up to 5 million gallons of potable water a day, 25 times the 200,000 gallon commercial limit set by Salt Lake City. Good luck saving Great Salt Lake if we surround it with UIPA-subsidized data centers.
Cryptocurrency serves no useful purpose and requires massive AI computations. Each Bitcoin transaction generates the equivalent carbon footprint of one million VISA transactions. Bitcoin is already one of the leading global industrial polluters. The quality of the algorithms is dependent on the size of the computing systems, and AGI can require 10 to 100 times more computing power than say GPT-4, with an exponential increase in energy demand. One complex can require 100 MW of electricity, the entire output of a small coal-fired power plant. Energy demand from AI data centers is forecasted to more than quadruple by 2030, strain on local electrical grids will be substantial. 'Hyperscale' data centers can require dozens of highly polluting diesel generators for back-up power.
AGI electricity demand is undermining decarbonization strategies worldwide, driving an increase in carbon emissions at the worst possible time for climate mitigation. Gov. Spencer Cox cited electricity demands of AI as contributing to Utah's 'energy crisis' justifying his 'Operation Gigawatt,' a promotion of his 'all of the above' strategy, including more polluting, climate killing fossil fuels and risky nuclear power.
Data centers are noise pollution centers. They emit constant humming and buzzing that can exceed 85 decibels, which is bothersome and harmful to neighbors. Noise pollution is the second most hazardous environmental pollutant after air pollution, causing many of the same adverse health outcomes.
Musk's xAI is being used primarily for his chatbot, Grok, which allows creation of unfiltered deepfake images, like Mickey Mouse wearing a Nazi uniform, and ever more pornography. Musk calls it 'the most fun AI in the world.' The environmental price tag of all that 'fun' is enormous. For example, Musk's AI supercomputer center in Memphis, Tennessee, uses 35 methane driven gas turbines, none have pollution controls required by EPA. It is already one of the largest emitters of toxic nitrogen oxides in a highly polluted county, far more than an oil refinery. Imagine if Utah allowed UIPA to bring several of these to Salt Lake, Tooele, and Weber Counties, each emitting far more pollution than another oil refinery.
In many ways the explosion of artificial intelligence is already harming society and threatening our future. We should rename it 'artificial stupidity.' Utah should be smarter than to allow UIPA to drag us into competing for tax payer subsidized big tech data centers, leaving the rest of us as collateral damage.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Sheetz racial discrimination case is on the chopping block as Trump rewrites civil rights
Sheetz racial discrimination case is on the chopping block as Trump rewrites civil rights

Yahoo

time28 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Sheetz racial discrimination case is on the chopping block as Trump rewrites civil rights

Federal authorities moved Friday to drop a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Sheetz convenience store chain, part of a broader effort by President Donald Trump's administration to halt the use of a key tool for enforcing the country's civil rights laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the top federal agency for enforcing workers rights, filed a motion in a Pennsylvania federal court to dismiss the Sheetz lawsuit, citing Trump's executive order directing federal agencies to deprioritize the use of 'disparate impact liability' in civil rights enforcement. Disparate impact liability holds that policies that are neutral on their face can violate civil rights laws if they impose artificial barriers that disadvantage different demographic groups. The concept has been used to root out practices that close off minorities, women, people with disabilities, older adults or other groups from certain jobs, or keep them from accessing credit or equal pay. Trump's executive order is part of his campaign to upend civil rights enforcement through firings and other steps that have consolidated his power over quasi-independent agencies like the EEOC, redirecting them to implement his priorities, including stamping out diversity and inclusion practices and eroding the rights of transgender people. In the Sheetz case, filed in April 2024 under the Biden administration, the EEOC had claimed that the company's policy of refusing to hire anyone who failed its criminal background checks discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job applicants. The lawsuit could survive even if the EEOC drops it: A Black worker who was let go from his Sheetz job in Pennsylvania filed a motion in federal court Thursday evening to intervene and pursue his own class action lawsuit. In its motion Friday, the EEOC asked the court to delay its dismissal of the lawsuit for 60 days to allow potential claimants to intervene. The Supreme Court recognized the concept of disparate impact in a landmark 1971 case, which held that a North Carolina power plant discriminated against Black employees by requiring high school diplomas and an intelligence test for certain higher paying roles, even though the requirements were irrelevant to the jobs. In 1991, bipartisan majorities in Congress voted to codify disparate impact in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The concept holds that it is illegal to impose barriers to employment if such practices have a discriminatory effect and have no relevance to the requirements of the job. The April 23 order declared that it is 'the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.' The order argued that disparate impact has become a 'key tool' of a 'pernicious movement' that threatens meritocracy in favor of 'racial balancing' in the workforce. Craig Leen, a former top official at the Labor Department under the first Trump administration, said while the executive order take a more aggressive approach, it reflects long-standing conservative concerns that disparate impact liability encourages the assumption that any racial imbalance in the workforce is a result of discrimination. Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights, said the Trump administration would rightfully 'focus on individual discrimination cases," which she said are 'more factually sound, less susceptible to manipulation, and more closely hews to the original intent' of civil rights law. The EEOC filed the original Sheetz lawsuit after an eight-year investigation that arose from complaints filed by two job applicants. But following Trump's disparate impact order, the EEOC filed a motion District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to dismiss the lawsuit. The EEOC had sent letters to potential claimants notifying them of its intention to drop the case and urging them to act quickly if they wished to intervene. U.S. workers can pursue federal discrimination lawsuits on their own if the EEOC declines to take up their complaints but often don't because of the resources required. The EEOC declined to comment further on the case. One of the potential claimants, Kenni Miller, filed a motion to intervene late Thursday. Miller, 32, was hired as a shift supervisor at a Sheetz in Altoona, Pennsylvania, in 2020, according to the motion filed by the law firm Outten & Golden, which represents workers in employment disputes, and the Public Interest Law Center. After working there for a month, Miller was told he failed the background check because of a felony drug conviction and was let go, according to the motion. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Sheetz' policy of denying jobs who anyone who failed a background check resulted in 14.5% Black job applicants being denied employment, compared to 8% of white applicants. For Native American applicants, the rate was 13%, and for multiracial applicants, it was 13.5%. In court filings, Sheetz denied the allegations. Attorneys for the company, which is being represented by the law firm Littler, declined to comment further. The EEOC has not said how many potential claimants have been identified but Outten & Golden estimates the number to likely be in the thousands. Sheetz has more than 20,000 employees and operates at least 700 brand-store locations in Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, according to court documents. The Sheetz case echoes a 2018 lawsuit against Target claiming that the retailer's hiring process, which automatically rejected people with criminal backgrounds, disproportionately kept Black and Hispanic applicants from getting entry level jobs. Target agreed to pay more than $3.7 million to settle the lawsuit, and revised its policy so fewer applicants with criminal records would be disqualified. In 2020, Walmart agreed to pay $20 million and discontinue a preemployment strength test that the EEOC had claimed in a lawsuit unfairly excluded women from jobs at grocery distribution centers. And in one of the biggest sex discrimination cases in recent years, Sterling Jewelers, the parent company of Jared and Kay Jewelers, agreed in 2022 to pay $175 million to settle a long-fought lawsuit alleging that some 68,000 women had been subjected for years to unfair pay and promotion practices. The Justice Department, EEOC and other federal agencies have moved quickly to quash the use of disparate impact liability. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, for example, has moved to dismiss several Biden-era lawsuits against police departments in Kentucky and Minnesota, saying the cases claimed patterns of unconstitutional policing practices 'by wrongly equating statistical disparities with intentional discrimination.' In a May memo to employers, EEOC Acting Chief Andrea Lucas said the agency would deprioritize disparate impact cases. She also warned companies against using demographic data, which large companies are required gather and submit annually to the EEOC, to justify policies that favor any employees based on race or sex, something Lucas has long argued many well-intentioned DEI policies do in violation of Title VII. In statement Friday, Lucas applauded a Supreme Court ruling Thursday that she said should encourage employees who feel DEI policies have discriminated against them. Jenny Yang, a former EEOC chair now with Outten & Golden, said the pullback on federal enforcement of disparate impact risks dissuading companies from proactively examining hiring and other practices to ensure they do not discriminate. At the same time, Yang and nine other former Democratic EEOC commissioners and counsels have released a letter to employers emphasizing that the Trump's order does not change the law. 'Employers should not expect that they will have a free pass on disparate impact liability simply because the President has instructed federal agencies not to pursue enforcement of the law,' wrote the former EEOC officials. ________ The Associated Press' women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at Download the FREE WPXI News app for breaking news alerts. Follow Channel 11 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch WPXI NOW

Superblocks CEO: How to find a unicorn idea by studying AI system prompts
Superblocks CEO: How to find a unicorn idea by studying AI system prompts

TechCrunch

time33 minutes ago

  • TechCrunch

Superblocks CEO: How to find a unicorn idea by studying AI system prompts

Brad Menezes, CEO of enterprise vibe coding startup Superblocks, believes the next crop of billion-dollar startup ideas are hiding in almost plain sight: the system prompts used by existing unicorn AI startups. System prompts are the lengthy prompts — over 5,000-6,000 words — that AI startups use to instruct the foundational models from companies like OpenAI or Anthropic on how to generate their application-level AI products. They are, in Menezes view, like a master class in prompt engineering. 'Every single company has a completely different system prompt for the same [foundational] model,' he told TechCrunch. 'They're trying to get the model to do exactly what's required for a specific domain, specific tasks.' System prompts aren't exactly hidden. Customers can ask many AI tools to share theirs. But they aren't always publicly available. So as part of his own startup's new product announcement of an enterprise coding AI agent named Clark, Superblocks offered to share a file of 19 system prompts from some of the most popular AI coding products like Windsurf, Manus, Cursor, Lovable and Bolt. Menezes's tweet went viral, viewed by almost 2 million including big names in the Valley like Sam Blond, formerly of Founders Fund and Brex, and Aaron Levie, a Superblocks investor. Superblocks announced last week that it raised a $23 million Series A, bringing its total to $60 million for its vibe coding tools geared to non-developers at enterprises. So we asked Menezes to walk us through how to study other's system prompts to glean insights. Techcrunch event Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | REGISTER NOW 'I'd say the biggest learning for us building Clark and reading through the system prompts is that the system prompt itself is maybe 20% of the secret sauce,' Menezes explained. This prompt gives the LLM the baseline of what to do. The other 80% is 'prompt enrichment' he said, which is the infrastructure a startup builds around the calls to the LLM. That part includes instructions it attaches to a user's prompt, and actions taken when returning the response, such as checking for accuracy. He said there are three parts of system prompts to study: role prompting, contextual prompting, and tool use. The first thing to notice is that, while system prompts are written in natural language, they are exceptionally specific. 'You basically have to speak as if you would to a human co-worker,' Menezes said. 'And the instructions have to be perfect.' Role prompting helps the LLMs be consistent, giving both purpose and personality. For instance, Devin's begins with, 'You are Devin, a software engineer using a real computer operating system. You are a real code-wiz: few programmers are as talented as you at understanding codebases, writing functional and clean code, and iterating on your changes until they are correct.' Contextual prompting gives the models the context to consider before acting. It should provide guardrails that can, for instance, reduce costs and ensure clarity on tasks. Cursor's instructs, 'Only call tools when needed, and never mention tool names to the user — just describe what you're doing. … don't show code unless asked. … Read relevant file content before editing and fix clear errors, but don't guess or loop fixes more than three times.' Tool use enables agentic tasks because it instructs the models how to go beyond just generating text. Replit's, for instance, is long and describes editing and searching code, installing languages, setting up and querying PostgreSQL databases, executing shell commands and more. Studying others' system prompts helped Menezes see what other vibe coders emphasized. Tools like Loveable, V0, and Bolt 'focus on fast iteration,' he said, whereas 'Manus, Devin, OpenAI Codex, and Replit' help users create full-stack applications but 'the output is still raw code.' Menezes saw an opportunity to let non-programmers write apps, if his startup could handle more, such as security and access to enterprise data sources like Salesforce. While he's not yet running the multi-billion startup of his dreams, Superblock has landed some notable companies as customers, it said, including Instacart and Paypaya Global. Menezes is also dogfooding the product internally. His software engineers are not allowed to write internal tools; they can only build the product. So his business folks have built agents for all their needs, like one that uses CRM data to identify leads, one that tracks support metrics, another that balance the assignments of the human sales engineers. 'This is basically a way for us to build the tools and not buy the tools,' he sais.

Crypto's Shocking Transformation: How Bitcoin Volatility Plummeted From 400% To 80%
Crypto's Shocking Transformation: How Bitcoin Volatility Plummeted From 400% To 80%

Yahoo

time39 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Crypto's Shocking Transformation: How Bitcoin Volatility Plummeted From 400% To 80%

Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below. Bitcoin's journey from digital experiment to mainstream investment has been marked by one defining characteristic: extreme price volatility. However, data from NYU Stern's Volatility Lab reveals a remarkable transformation in how dramatically Bitcoin's price swings, offering important lessons for today's investors. Between 2010 and 2017, Bitcoin experienced volatility that would make even the most seasoned traders nervous. During this period, annualized volatility frequently exceeded 200% and occasionally spiked above 400%. To put this in perspective, traditional stocks typically see volatility between 15-30% annually. Don't Miss: — no wallets, just price speculation and free paper trading to practice different strategies. Grow your IRA or 401(k) with Crypto – . This extreme volatility reflected Bitcoin's status as an unproven digital asset with minimal institutional backing. Small trading volumes meant that even modest buy or sell orders could trigger massive price swings. News events, regulatory announcements, or technical developments could send prices soaring or crashing within hours. The 2017 cryptocurrency bubble perfectly exemplified this era. Bitcoin's price rocketed from under $1,000 to nearly $20,000 before crashing back down, creating the kind of volatility that attracted speculators while terrifying traditional investors. Following the 2017-2018 market correction, something interesting began happening. Bitcoin's volatility started declining meaningfully. Between 2018 and 2020, volatility generally ranged between 50% and 150% – still extreme by traditional standards, but a significant improvement from the earlier chaos. This period coincided with several important developments: major companies began accepting Bitcoin payments, institutional investors started taking notice, and cryptocurrency exchanges became more sophisticated and regulated. These factors contributed to deeper liquidity and more stable price discovery. Current data shows Bitcoin's volatility has continued moderating, now typically ranging between 30%-80%. While this remains substantially higher than stocks or bonds, it represents a dramatic evolution from Bitcoin's early days. Recent analysis shows Bitcoin's average volatility sitting around 80%, with minimum levels reaching as low as 31%. This represents remarkable progress for an asset that once regularly experienced 300%-400% volatility. Trending: New to crypto? on Coinbase. This volatility evolution carries several important implications. First, Bitcoin has become more accessible to risk-conscious investors who were previously deterred by extreme price swings. Institutions and retail investors alike can now consider Bitcoin allocation with more predictable risk parameters. However, 'more stable' doesn't mean 'stable.' An 80% volatility level means investors should still expect significant price movements. Bitcoin can easily gain or lose 20%-30% in a single week, making it unsuitable for investors who can't tolerate substantial short-term losses. The data also suggests this maturation trend may continue. As Bitcoin's market capitalization grows and institutional adoption increases, basic economics suggests volatility should continue declining gradually. For investors considering Bitcoin exposure, this volatility evolution suggests several strategies. Dollar-cost averaging becomes particularly attractive, as it helps smooth out price fluctuations over time. Position sizing remains critical – financial advisors typically recommend limiting Bitcoin exposure to 1%-5% of total portfolios. Risk management takes on heightened importance. Even with reduced volatility, Bitcoin remains far more volatile than traditional assets, requiring careful consideration of overall portfolio risk. Bitcoin's volatility journey from 400% to 80% represents one of the most significant developments in cryptocurrency history. While still volatile by traditional standards, this evolution reflects Bitcoin's gradual transition from speculative experiment to legitimate asset class. For investors, this trend suggests Bitcoin is becoming more investable while remaining distinctly different from traditional assets. Understanding this evolution helps investors make informed decisions about whether and how to include Bitcoin in their portfolios, recognizing both its progress and its continued unique risk profile. Read Next: A must-have for all crypto enthusiasts: . Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — Image: Shutterstock This article Crypto's Shocking Transformation: How Bitcoin Volatility Plummeted From 400% To 80% originally appeared on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store