Opposition to AI datacenters has become a major theme in US politics, uniting people across party lines.
Communities are raising legitimate concerns about land use, energy prices, and environmental impact, especially since these facilities create few jobs.
However, experts argue that focusing solely on datacenters may play into the hands of AI companies.
Bruce Schneier, a security technologist at Harvard Kennedy School, and Nathan E Sanders, a data scientist affiliated with Harvard's Berkman Klein Center, warn that the real issue is the concentration of power and wealth in AI corporations.
In a recent analysis, they state that AI companies aim to capture the value created by entire industries, from customer service to legal services and even education and healthcare.
Datacenter Opposition: A Distraction?
While local protests have succeeded against speculative projects, well-funded datacenter developments often overcome resistance.
For instance, an OpenAI- and Oracle-backed facility in Michigan proceeded despite local rejection after a lawsuit forced a settlement.
The Trump administration has also signaled support for overriding state objections to advance AI infrastructure.
Moreover, the demand for centralized datacenters may decline as AI models become smaller and more efficient. Chinese labs like Z.
ai are innovating to reduce model size and cost, while Apple and Google support running AI on mobile devices.
The current datacenter boom could resemble the early 2000s fiber optic bubble.
Broader Issues at Stake
Schneier and Sanders argue that singling out datacenters misses larger problems.
Energy rates and inflation are more affected by geopolitical factors like the US-Iran war, and the US is ceding renewable energy leadership to China.
Housing affordability issues stem from stagnant federal subsidies, not datacenters.
The greatest risk from AI is the exacerbation of inequality and concentration of wealth.
The authors call for limiting corporate power, taxing AI computation, and supporting Public AI—an ecosystem under public control for public benefit.
They urge political organizers to reject AI companies' framing of the debate and focus on populist resistance to corporate influence.
As AI companies pour millions into legislative races, the discussion should shift from hyperbolic talk of superintelligence to real issues like money in politics and state regulation.
The midterm elections offer an opportunity to reorient the agenda toward controlling corporate power and ensuring AI benefits society.
