Kevin O'Leary has perfected the role of an antagonistic figure.
For decades, the celebrity investor has cultivated a reputation as the most unlikable wealthy individual on "Shark Tank," proudly embracing what he terms his brutal honesty. Last year, he further leaned into this character in "Marty Supreme," featuring a memorable segment where he humorously spanks Timothée Chalamet with a ping pong paddle.
It comes as no surprise, then, that he is now at the forefront of the backlash against AI data centers, actively promoting a large-scale project in Utah.
National media and social platforms have recently featured numerous stories regarding the opposition to the O'Leary-supported Stratos Project, which spans 40,000 acres. Notably, Tucker Carlson included O'Leary on his show last week, portraying him as a caricatured villain intent on taking advantage of Utah taxpayers.
In response to criticism of his initiative, O'Leary argues that the discontent is largely generated by professional protesters supposedly backed by obscure entities.
However, the broader context reveals that dissatisfaction with data centers is a prevalent, bipartisan sentiment across the United States, as indicated by recent Gallup polling data.
The prevailing technocratic response to this backlash is to dismiss the critics — asserting that data centers do not consume excessive water or energy. (A notable Business Insider series from last year extensively examined these competing claims.)
Yet, this situation seems to have escalated beyond mere resistance. Data centers have become symbolic repositories for public fears and concerns regarding AI — encompassing worries not only about environmental impact but also about broader implications for our economic landscape.
This anxiety is entirely justifiable. Key figures in the AI sector predict that the rise of AI will fundamentally transform the workforce.
Moreover, we're often told this transformation is unavoidable and that resistance is futile — that technology cannot be halted, and adaptability is our only option. Thus, opposing a local data center project feels like a rational form of protest. While one may not be able to prevent AI from drastically altering their lives, at least they can attempt to keep it out of their immediate vicinity.
For those who genuinely believe in the potential of AI and view the backlash as misplaced — considering opposition to data centers akin to opposing highways — analyst Ben Thompson offers a potential solution: financially compensate communities hosting data centers.
If these facilities are deemed vital for our AI-driven future, then it's reasonable to provide financial incentives to the local populace. By transforming the relationship from abstract tax benefits to tangible payments, it might be easier to garner community support.
The pragmatic retort to this proposition is that AI data centers are already expected to benefit local economies. They promise short-term job creation and are intended to stimulate long-term economic development.
However, there's a vast difference between merely informing residents that a striking structure nearby will generate income for some electricians and actually placing checks in their hands. If influential figures like O'Leary were to take proactive steps to distribute funds directly to residents, it might render the uncertain future of AI less daunting.
