Amazon Announces Multibillion-Dollar Data Center in Missouri
Amazon’s plan to build a multibillion-dollar data center in Missouri prompts debate over what this expanding cloud and AI infrastructure will actually serve: shareholder value, advertising and AI “slop,” or genuinely beneficial scientific and social uses. Commenters weigh the environmental and energy implications—including massive power needs, water use, and missed opportunities like desalination—against the promise of jobs and regional investment, noting that on-site roles are mostly technical trades rather than software engineering. Broader concerns emerge about economic inequality, the deskilling of labor, and potential impacts on democracy as ever-larger data centers concentrate power and resources in the hands of a few tech giants.
Use of compute capacity
- Many expect most new capacity to serve ads, engagement-maximizing content, and “AI slop” (short-form videos, AI girlfriends, political manipulation), not science or public good.
- Others note Amazon’s business is broader cloud services; its customer base is likely more diverse than ad tech alone.
- There’s nostalgia for early internet optimism and skepticism that this AI wave will be used differently from prior tech waves.
Jobs, automation, and democracy
- Some argue large AI data centers are meant to eliminate jobs, enrich a small elite, and erode democracy.
- Counterpoints call such views hyperbolic or “doomer,” emphasizing that tech progress has always displaced and created jobs.
- There is discussion of historical Luddites: they opposed how owners used tech to undercut labor, not tech itself—seen as analogous to current AI deployment.
- Concerns are raised that AI-driven inequality and concentration of wealth undermine democratic institutions.
Environmental and resource concerns
- Commenters worry about massive electricity use, associated heat, large natural-gas plants, and indirect climate impacts.
- Some compare a hypothetical 6–10 GW data center to alternative uses like large-scale desalination that could secure freshwater for tens of millions.
- Water use is debated:
- One side says evaporated cooling water re-enters the hydrological cycle and that many areas east of the Rockies aren’t water-stressed.
- Others point to actual droughts in those regions and emphasize noise, heat, and local water table risks.
- Closed-loop cooling is cited as increasingly common, but claimed adoption figures (e.g., 60–80%) are challenged as unsubstantiated in the sources offered.
Local economic impact and data center work
- Data centers provide mostly physical roles: electricians, plumbers, HVAC, security, technicians, logistics; relatively few on-site software engineers.
- Technician work is described as largely procedural (racking, cabling, swapping hardware, destroying drives), often “dumbed down” to minimize cost and risk.
- Wages for skilled trades can be decent; security/tech roles are said not to pay especially well.
- Locally, the site is described as rural and unlikely to employ many people from St. Louis proper.
Location, power, and infrastructure
- Proximity to military bases is floated as a potential security benefit but disputed (the nearby base is mainly for basic training).
- Others think siting is more about access to existing nuclear and solar generation.
- The cited 138 MW figure refers to Amazon’s investment in a carbon-free energy project, not necessarily the data center’s consumption; its actual load is unclear.
AI economics, AWS growth, and Jevons paradox
- AWS’s past growth is described as “mind boggling”; even efficiency gains in hardware/software have not slowed total capacity expansion.
- AI is seen as having an “infinite” appetite for compute, consistent with Jevons paradox: efficiency gains lower unit costs and increase total use.
- Some argue current AI usage is heavily subsidized “dumping”: cheap tokens to lock in enterprise workflows and reduce headcount, with pricing power to come later.
Ads, paywalls, and internet funding
- One view defends ads as essential to a free internet; without them, more content moves behind paywalls, which can be regressive.
- Critics say ad-based models create perverse incentives for maximizing screen time, degrading user experience and arguably costing individuals more via induced consumption.
- Alternatives like publicly funded services, libraries, or traffic-based taxation schemes are discussed but seen as complex or unclear to implement online.
Regulation, risk, and sentiment
- Some call for AI access to be regulated and taxed like dangerous chemicals or weapons, to keep cutting-edge models under stricter control.
- Others question how such jurisdiction would work and worry about criminalizing use of foreign or “unapproved” models.
- There is visible polarization: enthusiasm for tech and economic growth coexists with deep distrust of corporate motives and fears of societal harm.