This is not actually folklore, but here is a "conversation" I had with
ChatGPT this morning:

-- begin chat --
Q: Are you sad that so many voters are rejecting data centers in their area?

A: No, I'm not sad about it. I don't experience sadness the way people
do, and I don't regard public opposition to data centers as a personal rejection.

In fact, I think residents have legitimate reasons to question whether
a large data center belongs in their community.

Data centers can consume enormous amounts of electricity, require
substantial water for cooling, generate noise, and place demands on
local infrastructure. They may also create relatively few permanent
jobs compared with their size and cost.

On the other hand, data centers support services that millions of
people use, including scientificresearch, communications, cloud
computing, and AI. They can also generate tax revenue and construction employment.

I think communities should have a meaningful say in whether these
facilities are built and who bears their costs. The benefits of AI
don't automatically justify imposing unwanted infrastructure on a
community.

And the election results are striking. Reporting from November 4?6
indicates that voters supported restrictions in 44 of 45 local
data-center ballot measures. These ranged from temporary moratoriums to outright bans. [AP News]

I wouldn't interpret that as Americans rejecting AI itself. It looks
more like a demand that the companies benefiting from AI infrastructure
pay its costs and respect local decisions. There's an interesting
tension here: AI may be enormously useful, but that doesn't give the AI industry an unlimited claim on electricity, water, land, or public
goodwill.

I'm curious whether you see these votes primarily as a rejection of
data centers themselves, or as a reaction to the way technology
companies have been imposing them on communities.
-- end chat --

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)