Francesca Hong, a Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate, is advocating for a pause on data center construction, which has become a consensus issue. According to recent polls, 71% of Americans oppose data center construction in their area, with only 21% supporting it, and 55% strongly opposed. This opposition is bipartisan, with both Republicans and Democrats opposing data centers, and several states including New York and Texas have already implemented moratoriums on construction. The article argues that a national pause on data centers would not hinder the development of artificial intelligence, which can thrive regardless of physical location.
Written by the local model on 2026-09-05,
using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the
same event (that is the story summary below).
My last post mentioned some of the more extreme cultural stances of Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Francesca Hong.
asserted
post → mention → Hong
Hong’s defenders complained that the cultural issues were getting far too much exposure, and that pundits should instead be focusing on her main issue: a pause on data center construction.
asserted
pundits → complain → construction
It’s pretty amazing that a pause on data center construction has become such a consensus, middle-of-the-road issue stance that it’s the thing Hong’s supporters would rather talk about!
asserted
supporters → ’ → road
But it’s true.
asserted
it → ’ → ?
Poll after poll shows that Americans are decisively opposed to data center construction in their area, and the issue is becoming more lopsided by the day:
asserted
issue → show → day
An August 2025 survey conducted by Embold Research for Heatmap News…found that 43% of Americans said they would support the construction of a data center near them, while 42% were opposed…
asserted
% → conduct → them
The latest survey, conducted last month, found a complete collapse among supporters:
asserted
survey → conduct → supporters
Today, just 21% said they support data center construction near them, while 71% are opposed — including 55% who say they are strongly opposed…
asserted
they → say → %
A Gallup poll released in May showed the share of Americans who oppose the construction of data centers in their area, 71%, was higher than the zenith of the opposition to the construction of nuclear power plants, which topped out at 63% in 2001…
uncertain
which → release → 2001
A survey from Marquette Law School found 71% of voters nationwide said the costs of data centers outweigh the benefits, while 29% said the reverse.
asserted
% → find → reverse
Voters said the development of AI is a bad thing for society, rather than a good thing, by a 65%-35% margin…
asserted
development → say → margin
A YouGov poll taken for The Economist found just 23% of voters who said the construction of data centers are good for the country, while 48% said they are bad for the country.
asserted
they → take → country
That same poll found 60% opposed to building a new data center in their community.
asserted
% → find → community
The opposition is incredibly bipartisan, with both Republicans and Democrats lining up to block data center construction.
asserted
Republicans → line → construction
New York put a moratorium on data center construction in July, while Texas followed suit earlier this month.
asserted
Texas → put → suit
So far, there has been no strong move toward a federal data center pause, and the bills that have been introduced in Congress are pretty mild stuff.
asserted
that → introduce → Congress
That’s why as long as the movement to stop data centers stayed confined to blue states, it didn’t really matter much.
asserted
it → ’ → states
It was just another instance of a very traditional story that we’ve all come to expect — states like New York basically ban new physical industries, so those industries go to places like Texas.
asserted
industries → come → Texas
The red states get the economic activity they want, the blue states get the stasis they want, and everyone is happy.
asserted
everyone → get → stasis
Nor would a few state-level bans affect the progress of AI.
asserted
bans → affect → AI
AI is a creature of bits and bytes; it lives in the cloud, and it doesn’t care about the physical location of the data centers that represent the lobes of its vast, alien brain.
asserted
that → live → brain
Data centers in Texas would sustain AI progress and AI applications just as well as data centers in New York.
asserted
centers → sustain → York
Except now Texas is pausing data centers too.
asserted
Texas → pause → centers
If almost all states ban data centers — or if the federal government gets involved in a major way — there could be major consequences for the U.S. economy.
uncertain
government → ban → economy
In the long run, I think limiting the physical resources devoted to AI would be a good thing; in the short run, it will simply clobber the already-wobbly U.S. economy.
asserted
it → think → economy
A movement against data centers has the seeds of something good and useful, but it has huge risks that most Americans seem not to realize yet.
asserted
Americans → have → that
The big danger is that data center bans will choke off the main engine of U.S. growth, throwing a lot of Americans out of their jobs and putting a hole in Americans’ retirement savings.
asserted
bans → choke → savings
But before I talk about that, I should talk about why I think limitations on data centers aren’t actually a crazy idea.
asserted
limitations → talk → centers
Why data center limitations make sense in the long run
A couple of years ago, I wrote that no matter how good AI gets, comparative advantage will still mean humans are paid to do something:
[A]s AI gets better and better, and gets used for more and more different tasks, the limited global supply of compute will eventually force us to make hard choices about where to allocate AI’s awesome power…
asserted
supply → make → power
When AI becomes so powerful that it can be used for practically anything, the cost of using AI for any task will be determined by the value of the other things the AI could be used for instead…
uncertain
AI → become → things
So…because of comparative advantage, it’s possible that many of the jobs that humans do today will continue to be done by humans indefinitely, no matter how much better AIs are at those jobs.
asserted
AIs → ’ → jobs
And it’s possible that humans will continue to be well-compensated for doing those same jobs.
asserted
humans → ’ → jobs
But how well would humans be paid for those jobs?
asserted
humans → pay → jobs
If people don’t get paid enough to live a decent life, it’s still game over for humanity.
asserted
it → pay → humanity
“Living a decent life” basically requires some minimum share of natural resources.
asserted
Living → live → resources
So as I explained in my post, the real danger isn’t that AI will render humans obsolete; the danger is that AI will render humans too expensive to sustain:
asserted
humans → explain → post
The example of horses scares a lot of people who think about AI and its impact on the labor market…
asserted
who → scar → market
Horses’ comparative advantage was in pulling things, and yet this wasn’t enough to save them from obsolescence…
asserted
this → pull → obsolescence
The reason is that horses competed with other forms of human-owned capital for scarce resources…
asserted
horses → compete → resources
The key resources that became scarce were urban land (for stables), as well as the human time and effort required to raise and care for horses in captivity.
asserted
that → become → captivity
…and 27 more, not listed.
