The exact wrong lesson to learn from data centre infrasound fears
“Ketan, do you know anything about this whole data centres / infrasound thing?”
I am not exaggerating when I say that message activated me like a sleeper agent flipping out when they hear the sub-hypnotic subliminal activation phrase.
This is something I know pretty well. Fears around “wind turbine syndrome”, an ailment supposedly induced by inaudible low-frequency noise from wind turbines, were imported from America into Australia around 2011, when I was starting out in the wind industry. I got deeply involved in that debate, largely in defence of wind power and in critique of the cultish pseudoscientists who were inflicting fear, anxiety and tension on communities already exhausted by the scale and imposition of our business on their communities.
Pretty quickly I learnt that yelling about disinformation was not as important as addressing the structural reasons for its uptake. A decent chunk of blame lay with bad corporate development, the social toxicity of the profit motive and the dismissiveness of governments. Being involved in this debate got me in my first real trouble, but it also shaped my philosophy around energy, community and corporate development. I learnt that dealing with why people hunt for pseudoscience is better than refuting the pseudoscience once it takes root.
When I got sent that message about data centre infrasound I found a recently-published youtube video with good intentions but what I think is a counterproductive approach to helping communities. Hasty but compellingly-presented warnings of illness can become a self-fulfilling prophecy in a context already highly charged by the disgustingly bad behaviour of tech companies and data centre developers. And then, a lengthy ‘debunking’ response from a pro-data-centre blogger, whose focus on these bad theories will probably help feed the industry’s sneering dismissiveness of community discontent.
All this in the context of two colliding tectonic plates: governments and companies who’ve gone all in on the AI boom and feel like they’ll lose everything if they take their foot off the pedal, colliding with the infuriated and organised global coalition of victims of that same boom.
Profit-driven wind development pissed off communities, but wind’s issues were possible to at least partly fix because they are part of the level-headed long-term project of fossil fuel elimination.
Reformation is impossible for AI data centres, at least, not without a massive change of course and an ideological reckoning. They are a physical manifestation of nonsensical frazzled billionaire panic that is being driven by people with a genuine hostility towards humanity.
Grab a cup of tea or something. Let me tell you about it.
How a fabricated syndrome shaped my career
I told myself when I wrote my book that I’d never wield that as a bragging point, but I really have to take that back. Not only is half of the 2020 book I wrote with the University of New South Wales press focused on telling the story of the fictional disease “wind turbine syndrome” (WTS) as it spread through Australia, I really don’t think anyone else has ever published anything as in-depth on this issue (with the possible exception of Dr Fiona Crichton and Professor Simon Chapman’s jointly authored book). My book is pretty deeply researched, and it draws on both the science of infrasound and health effects, and my own experiences in the middle of that debate.
I am badly at risk of re-writing that entire book here, but I will try and give you a summary that hits on the points most relevant to what we’re seeing around data centres. Please just trust me when I say I could regale you with at least 1,000 extra stories of community fear, anti-wind lobbying and health / science social issues for every single thing I mention. This was my life for half a decade, and when you finish reading this section I hope you’ll understand why it was so significant for me.
My insufferable logical fallacy era
As far as I could tell when researching my book, the theory that wind turbines cause sickness through inaudible noise emerged (or at least was most significantly popularised) by an American couple living near a proposed project. Nina Pierpont MD self-published a paper in late 2009 performing some junk science1 on residents near an operational project, which was never published in a journal and (spoiler alert) never replicated by other health professionals ever again. Her website, and that of her husband Calvin Luther Martin is still up, here. It began as sober concerned-local-doctor pseudoscience but in months it become completely unhinged. It is really packed with some amazing imagery.
It came to Australia in a big way in 2009 – 2010, as well. The conservative then-opposition government saw it as a fruitful way to poke at investor confidence for large-scale wind power while it was at an early stage of development, and took on the dishonest role of ‘just asking questions’. The centre-left Labor government’s ‘Renewable Energy Target’ was very ambitious and it was spurring significant wind growth in rural areas, in Australia. So there was no shortage of communities facing large, new wind projects.
It was catnip for 25-year-old Ketan. This issue was why I started blogging (and the subject of the very first thing I ever had published), and I got to repeatedly say stuff like “anecdotal evidence” and “logical fallacy” and “burden of proof“, like any insufferable little new-atheist / rationalist constantly missing the bigger picture. I was still working in data analysis in the wind farm control centre but it was undeniably fun to mock the contradictions and absurdities. In one particularly amusing incident, I compiled for my blog an infographic showing the various claimed symptoms of WTS, as a way of illustrating that it had just become a weird catch-all for any ailment near a wind farm:
Somehow, in 2013, when Donald Trump’s advisor Dan Scavino was googling around for anti-wind fodder thanks to a proposed Scottish project threatening the view from a Trump golf course, he found my graphic, shared it, and that scored an RT from the addled fascist himself. Behold:
When I replied to Trump politely explaining he’s shared something debunking wind syndrome, he promptly blocked me (I am still blocked by his account on X). In retrospect this was me being pretty clumsy in my graphical communication, but yeah. It’s also pretty funny.
My Twitter account got me in real trouble, too. The head of the group that helmed the project of pushing fear of wind turbine infrasound communities (Sarah Laurie, CEO of the Waubra Foundation) was litigious and conspiratorial, and regularly blurted out overstated claims. She was a former general practitioner, and traded on that in selling these fears to communities.
Stick with me here, this is a journey. When a wind turbine industry lobbyist referred to Sarah Laurie in a post as “deregistered”, she took it as an implication she’d been struck off the register (what happened was that her registration just lapsed over time). That post was retweeted by Sydney University Professor Simon Chapman, who’d been leading skeptical scrutiny of the group’s claims. In a Senate Inquiry into wind turbine syndrome (these were held more than a few times), Chapman apologised for mis-describing Laurie’s lapsing of registration of being a doctor. I was live-tweeting that Senate inquiry:
In response to my post above, which was pretty clearly just a description of what was said at the inquiry (and even specified the word was ‘wrong’), I got hit with a defamation lawsuit from Laurie and the Waubra Foundation. The fun way defamation law is designed in Australia is that merely sending the threat means you can burden your SLAPP victim with a loss of time, money and mental health. It’s a cult / pseudoscience favourite. One particular case involving a tweet was clearly the inspiration of the threat I received. Aussie defo law is completely cooked.
Ultimately, it was resolved by me posting an absurd “clarification” on my blog, and the Waubra Foundation added it to their sad, dusty trophy chest.
It was the worst nine months of my life. What I learnt from this process is that once you extract yourself from the waist-deep shit pit, you tend to think a lot about avoiding the next one2. For me, that meant stepping back and thinking about why it had all devolved to such dirty tactics.
Demand for bullshit
While the theory was absurd, it was also catnip for journalists hunting for ‘human interest stories’. The segment below aired on ‘Hungry Beast’, on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation:
There’s a bit in that clip that I think gives everything away. “The [wind farm developer] walked in here like he owned the place”. Honestly, he probably did. The behaviours, attitudes, habits and statements of corporate developers is the one thing that media outlets, politicians and industry bodies failed to really scrutinise, even though it was something that wind farm opponents kept bringing up, again and again.
Chatting to a friend at an industry dinner, someone who’d developed a massive wind project that saw no opposition at all, I asked him how he managed it. Pretty simple: a generous benefit sharing scheme, and consequently, a lot of very happy neighbours.
“The Waubra Foundation, they only go to where they’re needed, the sites where everyone’s pissed off and looking for ammo”, he told me. “If they visited our site, they’d be told to piss off”.
He was right. They’d save their worst, most toxic interventions for sites with bubbling or rising anger, pour the fuel and light the fuse. But where communities were happy and satisfied, they were sometimes even actively hostile to the anti-wind group. In 2014, me and Professor Simon Chapman laid this out in a bit more detail in a paper, published here. We found that there was general, low-level discontent before the anti-wind group came to town. After they arrived, it was explosive anger. Professor Simon Chapman, and others such as Dr Fiona Crichton, published work on how the suggested presence of WTS was itself a stressor and even inducing those symptoms through the power of suggestion. They reference the ominous “nocebo” effect, the opposite of the ‘placebo’. It was important work that laid out the serious social danger of fake warnings of health impacts, and I’m pretty proud to have been involved.
But you also have to zoom out a bit. Two circumstances are required for fear of WTS to take root.
First, the community had to be alienated and angered by development.
And second, the anti-wind group had to attend and fuel the fire as much as possible.
Circumstance #2 could not exist without circumstance #1. At sites where communities were well consulted, involved in decision-making processes, and sharing in the benefits, there was no spark to ignite. There were also cases where well-meaning companies tried to install better community engagement after the fire was lit, and it failed. The only solution is preventing the disease, not treating the symptoms. Wind power works best when people next door are very happy.
What worked
The debunking, the cringey logical fallacy debates, the scientific papers, even the multi-million dollar government health studies (which, naturally, all delivered negative results half a decade later) failed to address the root cause.
Better developer behaviour, the efforts of amazing community advocates like the Renewable Energy Alliance and the Community Power Agency, along with an independent government commissioner combined to deprive wind turbine syndrome groups of fuel, all of which have disbanded in Australia (opposition tends now to focus on environmental themes).
Wind syndrome lingers, of course. A Swedish researcher has been shopping the theory around to Nordic regions, particularly Norway (where wind power is hated, and our local anti-wind group is the leading source of disinformation for all of Europe). My Google Alert is still active for this theory and it pings off results semi-regularly, eg this, in reference to my family’s home region of Gujarat, in India, where wind development has been pretty unjust:
As I wrote recently in a submission to an Australian inquiry into disinformation:
“When an anti-wind group finds purchase and widespread local support, it is usually because that group provided a framework and terminology to allow a community to express the deep hurt of injustice in language that sounds justifiable: being worried about your health, wanting to save birds, wanting to save whales, wanting to prevent bushfires.
Every falsified meme offered up tends to have its own moral weight for this reason. They offer a pressure release valve to members of a community that feels they can’t simply say that they’re being treated unfairly, because the broader social system of capitalism deems that an unacceptable plea”
“In conjunction with stricter regulations and scrutiny of dark-money astroturf groups, fairer models of development will be a necessary (but insufficient on their own) part of reducing friction at the sites of large-scale energy projects. It is also a way to broadly reduce the impact of disinformation around clean energy in Australia – not as a direct counter, but as a way to cut off its fuel source, which is frustrated, angry and disenfranchised communities”
Just to restate this, because it’s important. You need to to fulfil two conditions for health fears to emerge:
- People pissed off by bad development, who will hunt for rationalisations.
- Creating fear of something inaudible, undetectable and unpredictable is very prone to actually inducing those very symptoms
If you address only the first, the second dies due to lack of demand; the best-case outcome. We want happy communities, and sad disinformation peddlers. If you address only the second, the anger persists and different outlets are found by infuriated communities. Sometimes, only tackling the disinformation ends up with pointless escalation, personal hostility and a hardening of beliefs. You can trust me on that.
Data centre infrasound fears
A few months back, a sound technician youtuber published a half-hour video essentially warning of the dangers of infrasound emitted from modern data centres; specifically that it causes symptoms like headaches, anxiety, nausea and sleeplessness. It’s published by Benn Jordan (I tried reaching out to Jordan twice to talk to him for this piece, but he did not reply). If you watch his great videos, you can definitely see where he’s coming from: he’s in one of the many, many industries that has been damaged badly by technology companies and their theft, plagiarism and general toxification of human creativity.
It is titled ‘data centers are behaving like acoustic weapons’, and the title graphic says “DATA CENTERS ARE MAKING PEOPLE SICK”.
In the clip, Jordan uses some fancy equipment to measure infrasound from xAI’s nightmare ultra-polluting data centre, an oil field and a crypto mine, finding the data centre did emit significant levels. He also ran a double blind experiment with speakers in a room, asking participants to report their sensations with infrasound from speakers on and off, at what he estimates would be the same levels as from the data centre, claiming to have found that the participants could sense whether the signal was activated or deactivated.
What Masley missed
That video drew a 20,000 word response from effective altruist blogger Andy Masley, who’s become something of a key figure in defending technology companies and data centres from backlash and criticism.
I think you can find a nice example of Masley’s efforts in how he has labelled water use concerns as “fake”, and that ended up in the mouth of Sam Altman himself. Another nice example is the fact the company Anthropic cites his blogposts instead of disclosing actual energy or water use data (OpenAI discloses nothing, as well).
Masley’s blog drew a response from Jordan, another blog post criticising Masley, and Masley responding to both. It’s a lot of words, almost entirely focused on debating the specifics of infrasound, health impacts and the claims made in various papers.
First, I think it’s important to note that infrasound related objections to data centres are not prominent (yet). If you dig, you can find TikToks, Facebook posts or general discussion on this, but you’d be also be hard pressed finding many3 formal infrasound-based objections from local and larger groups opposing unchecked data centre growth. It’s a strange thing to dedicate 20,000 words to.
You can imagine how funny and weird it was reading his blogpost. It really felt like a blast from the past. His references seem fine to me, and I couldn’t spot any errors. I don’t know if he used Claude to prepare that post but if he did I’m confident it was drawing partly on my own book, articles, blog posts and published papers on this issue (I’ll send an invoice to Anthropic). I recognise the name of most researchers and most of the scientific studies Masley cites, particularly the ones focusing on health, psychology and experiences.
I am, of course, still good friends with Fiona Crichton and Simon Chapman. Chapman gets credited as the “great public debunker of Wind Turbine Syndrome” by Masley:
Like most things Masley writes on data centres, it is admittedly pretty polished in terms of getting the basic facts right. In particular, Masley is right to critique a fair amount of sloppy referencing from Jordan, and the way Jordan tries to dissociate from anti-wind groups while also citing papers used by them. Jordan’s human experiment in particular should have been conducted in a far more controlled environment, ideally in partnership with scientists.
But Masley presents this story in a way that absolves technology companies and data centre developers of responsibility. The falsity of infrasound health fears is not wrong, but it is only half the story, and I think it’s pretty clear why Masley doesn’t want to tell the second half.
Why is the opposition to data centres so intense that its inspiring the take-up of the infrasound / health theory? Masley could start with page 268 of Crichton and Chapman’s book, where they “consider procedural justice issues – the fairness of decision-making procedures – which have been shown to influence views about windfarms”, and argue “that a key strategy to minimise local opposition to windfarms and reduce all concerns, including health anxiety, involves some form of benefit sharing. This involves communities having some significant financial stake in the project, or other benefits of value that accrue to the community as a whole”.
This is a crucial part of Chapman and Crichton’s work, and my own efforts in this space. Personally I think it was the single most important conclusion we reached. Prevention is a million times more important than scrappy bun-fights and defo cases with cultish infrasound doctors.
I am not really surprised Masley doesn’t dig deeper into what could actually fix this problem. How would a proposition for data centre developers to share benefits with local communities go down with the normal audience of one of his posts? Definitely not well, despite the fact that approach would go 100x further towards stopping fear and anxiety in communities. Dario and Sam would unsubscribe, immediately. More on that, later.
What Jordan gets wrong
Jordan deserves criticism too, not for his intent but for his approach. I know plenty about wind turbine infrasound but nothing about data centre infrasound. But truly, if there’s science worth interrogating there, you’d be hard-pressed finding a worse platform for disseminating it than Youtube.
Video is a medium that lends itself to emotional communication. I think Jordan really does care, intensely, about the injustice of the tech industry as it exists today, at several different levels. But video is also a medium that lends itself to muddled health science, and the easy spread of fear. There are countless ‘documentary’ videos for wind turbines, and they’ve played a key role in spreading poorly-founded fears.
Jordan cares about the people, but gets the science wrong. Masley cares about the science, but gets people wrong.
I think Benn Jordan should be much more aware of the danger of suggestion. Paired with the stress of nasty, toxic corporate development it can combine to create real health issues. Jordan shouldn’t have loudly announced this as a confirmed threat. He should have waited for real, solid published scientific evidence regarding human health. Why not work with scientists, health experts and social scientists and make videos about that process of investigation and exploration? That would be a million times more beneficial.
Can data centres be reformed?
Something both Jordan and Masley get wrong is that, in reality, fossil fuel interests were only ever indirectly connected to the spread of wind turbine syndrome. WTS was really more an emergent property of how wind farms were developed in countries like Australia, America, Canada and the UK. I’m confident there was some dirty dark money involved, but all it did was intensify a trend.
In contrast, Danish and German projects, most paired with far better community ownership schemes, drew far less opposition (and a recent shift to more private ownership has driven more anger in those regions).
Dr Crichton recently submitted comments to a review of Australia’s ‘wind farm commissioner’, and I think her comments are worth replicating:
“In totality evidence indicates that meaningful community engagement, consultation, and most of all fair processes around wind farm development and operation, will neutralise community anxiety and alleviate health complaints. The chance for community members to be heard, to have concerns addressed, and to be part of processes that recognise the importance of procedural and distributive justice, is critical”.
Masley would do well to read Fiona’s full work. But this all begs the question: could the data centre backlash be fixed with better procedural and distributive justice considerations from companies?
Without a major structural change in the industry, probably not.
Panic, anxiety and impatience overrides everything for these developers: environmental concerns, local resource issues, community benefit sharing (beyond clumsy drops of cash rather than thoughtful engagement). How would the tech industry respond to a ‘data centre commissioner’ who acts as an independent arbiter between communities and the industry? The YIMBY anti-community-engagement crowd who seem to partly overlap with the centre-left pro-AI crowd would sneer and scoff at an idea like this, even though it would again go much farther in helping communities than lengthy blogs about infrasound papers.
I know what’s up with wind turbine syndrome in a way that Masley has completely failed to grasp, because he’s clearly hesitant to of assign anything but mild blame to the behaviour of the companies developing data centres (in much the same way I couldn’t even imagine blaming my own employers and industry, in 2011). To be fair: he does point at a few bad projects, and a few real issues, but I feel like he never turns his gaze to the structural frantic overbuilding that is making these problems unmanageable in their scale.
Tech companies will never have the moment of self-preserving zen focused on compromise and community that the wind industry did, because they are driven by anxious hype rather than the long-term, socially-beneficial umbrella of climate action and fossil fuel phase-out. Climate action is a meaningful, science-based project, and the rush to build inefficient text, image and video generators is not.
Please, take it from someone with lived experiences and battle scars in the single most significant infrasound debate in history, rather than a Claude Pro subscription.
I think Masley is helping to usher in an attitude where objections to data centres are dismissed as kooky, pseudoscientific and fabricated (as Altman now does for water, and will surely do for infrasound, too). It also creates permission space for centre-left people to dismiss opposition as cultish and absurd more broadly.
This is bad, because it misses the fundamental reason those fears exist, and instead assigns full blame to devious misinformers (just as I did, and was wrong to do so). If you were to remove the misinformers and the fear mongers, the sentiment would not change.
This is what I wrote, in closing the chapter on ‘wind turbine syndrome’ in my book:
“The next decade will work perfectly if the lessons of the past decade are heeded. Renewable energy will roll out as fast as it needs to, and it will take the shape that it must to be fully accepted by those who’ll live nearby.
It’ll deliver a windfall of benefits to everyone, immediately, and it’ll reduce emissions too. It is the vibe of the thing. Climate action has to be a warm hug from a friend, not a stern dressing down from a science teacher. That ought to have come first, but there is still time to make it a priority”
I stand by those words, very very strongly. The absolute mess that played out around wind development in the 2010s could have been prevented from the outset through better planning, longer-term thinking and better sharing of benefits. Wind turbine syndrome would never have existed without the angry fuel that fed it. Anti-wind groups would’ve sat around twiddling their thumbs next to a phone that never rings.
Instead of addressing the corporate root cause, the anti-anti-tech movement is disproportionately highlighting this subset of objections to data centre growth because it’s a neat way to mock, dismiss and degrade the bulk of the tech-critical movement.
Wind turbines are not data centres
It is worth stating explicitly that I do not think data centre development in its current mode of wild excess is good, or capable of widespread community-focused reformation. As I’ve laid out elsewhere, it is happening in a way that worsens climate change4, both through grid connections that exceed new renewables and the ever-worsening panic-building of new on-site gas-fired power. The relationships between technology companies and the fossil fuel industry grow in number and strength every single day.
It also has astonishing real, immediate and very verifiable health impacts on local communities. The impacts of audible noise are real (and worse than wind, which tends to have stricter setbacks), and far worse when combined with the railroading approach of developers and state and federal schemes to ‘fast-track’ projects.
I am definitely seeing a growing mode of thought among people like Holly Jean Buck, whose contention is that objections to data centres are fuzzy, incorrect and triggered not by rational deliberation of real impacts but a hazy reflection of broader malaise and dissatisfaction with tech power: “populist” delusions for communities that cannot be trusted as meaningful messengers of what ails them.
Buck, like Masley, wants a move away from mortaria and project-blocking, and policies like renewable energy mandates instead. Buck cites Minnesota’s HF16 (weirdly linking to a completely irrelevant document), but is either unwilling or uninterested in highlighting the fact that it was climate, environment and renewable groups that shaped that bill; the same groups she caricatures as unhelpful blockers in her piece. It is also a requirement that comes into place in 2040: the best those climate groups could manage in the face of incredible power and pushback. This is an industry that resists community, deliberation and democratic governance more than anything.
It is in fact more expensive to build a new gas-fired power station than to power a site using clean tech. But renewables mandates are resisted with political might, and unthinkably huge new fossil fuel power plants are literally being built.
Many of these issues could be mitigated in a normal situation, but not when politicians and companies have pinned uncontrolled expansion to some weird ideology of ‘winning the AI race’. Any push for community responsibility is seen as a handicap in that race.
In the current mode of development, what could be mitigated won’t be mitigated, because developers are fundamentally disinterested in a gradual, sustained and careful long-term plan for growth. This isn’t a field with good players and some troublesome cowboys. Everyone is a cowboy, from Microsoft to the no-name randos.
Wind turbines spring into existence because preventing coal and gas use saves an astonishing number of lives. Data centres are springing into existence because the tech industry is trying to fabricate demand for a shockingly energy intensive software product they see as a path out of the quagmire of multi-decade stagnation, or because they think the program is going to become a living thing. This is not normal. These facilities are not the same as your friendly local aluminium smelter: they are closer in development and operational style to the bitcoin mine reopening the coal plant in your community.
It is also important to mention that technology companies like Google and Meta operate the social networks and slop-ridden information spaces that have actively helped spread disinformation around theories like ‘wind turbine syndrome’. Generative AI has become a major force used by anti-wind groups, sometimes to create fake papers and sometimes to generate evocative and emotional imagery to spur opposition to renewable energy. I recently found that Meta lets you create your own climate-denying chatbot.
How is it surprising that these companies are fundamentally disinterested in building data centres in a way that does not immediately anger most nearby residents? They truly, comprehensively do not care about their impacts, whether that’s the impacts of data centres themselves or the impacts of the services they provide.
A weird and unique industry
Whatever Masley’s intent, his disproportionate focus on fuzzier objections to data centres will, I bet, offer Sam Altman talking points he can mutter into a podcast microphone . The end result is we’ll see increased dismissal of objections as kooky, fabricated delusions: “fake” to use Altman and Masley’s favourite word.
Masley wants data centres treated the same as other heavy industry: steel plants, manufacturing or other processing facilities. But these facilities are not proposing fossil fuel plants that emit at country-sized levels. A steel plant is not making steel with the hope of soon creating a conscious, super-intelligent lump of steel that solves all the world’s problems. We’ll treat it like a normal industry when it starts behaving like a normal industry.
None of this goes away until the people at the companies building data centres re-establish communications channels with the planet they’re on. Water, atmosphere, creatures, energy, people: these are all things you have to consider the existence of, if you want to build energy-intensive industry.
The next time a tech CEO has to deal with objections to a project they can blurt out something about anti-vaxxer-style “green MAGA5” kooks worried about electromagnetic fields and infrasound. Thanks to this new framing, tech executives get to remain off-planet and continue to ignore the real humans they’re hurting.
Benn Johnson isn’t responsible for the scream of collective fury being directed at tech, even if his youtube infrasound video will, frankly, probably be counterproductive for communities in its current form. This is an industry that has earned the existing level of red hot hate through their actions and their statements and their collective, insincere dead-eyed smirk. If you want happy communities next to data centres, you have to address the fundamental ideology driving the industry’s anxious over-deployment, and everything else is a sideshow at best.
FOOTNOTES
- I had forgotten how bad this “study” was. Pierpont literally called up people complaining about wind projects and then started giving them loaded questions about vague symptoms (headaches, anxiety etc). ↩︎
- My next job was with the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, and a sitting Senator hit that agency with a bunch of absurd questions around my advocacy on wind energy, but consistently described me as “Ketan Yoshi” ↩︎
- All I can find here is one citation of ‘low frequency noise’ at an inaudible level from the Sierra Club in 2025 ↩︎
- Masley downplays this by presenting it as a percentage of world emissions, in exactly the same way climate denying conservatives have done for countries. Apparently he’s writing something about AI and climate and I’m sure the result will be “there are some issues but everything can be fixed by asking the tech companies nicely if they’ll buy some renewables”. Andy, if you want to help, get your mates at Anthropic to disclose even a single bloody number on their energy and emissions footprint. Go on, I dare you to try. ↩︎
- Turns out its actual-MAGA ↩︎
