Essay by Eric Worrall
Data centers driving up energy costs and fear of job losses have become major public concerns.
The American rebellion against AI is gaining steam
Amrith Ramkumar, Katherine Blunt, Lindsay Ellis
…
Delivering a commencement address at the University of Arizona, Schmidt told students the “technological transformation” wrought by artificial intelligence will be “larger, faster and more consequential than what came before.” Like some other graduation speakers mentioning AI, Schmidt was met with a chorus of boos.
…
Consumers resent energy-price jumps exacerbated by the spread of data centers. Workers fear widespread job losses. Parents worry about AI undermining education and harming children’s mental health. In recent months, the wave of anger has brought protests, swayed election results and spurred isolated acts of violence.
In April, a 20-year-old Texas man allegedly threw a Molotov cocktail at OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman’s home and made threats at the company’s San Francisco headquarters, according to a federal complaint filed against him. A few days earlier, someone fired 13 shots at the front door of an Indianapolis councilman who had recently approved a data center.
…
After bubbling up in a handful of races last year, it has exploded onto the ballot across the country. Voters in Festus, Mo., ousted four city council members a week after they approved a $6 billion data center. Dozens of communities in states from Maine to Arizona are trying to ban new data centers. Some 360,000 Americans are in Facebook groups opposed to the facilities, roughly quadruple the number from December, figures from organizations fighting the AI build-out show.
…
Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/the-american-rebellion-against-ai-is-gaining-steam/ar-AA23w1HH?ocid=finance-verthp-feeds
Globalists and Democrats have been quick to jump on these public concerns.
The point is these are legitimate concerns – AI is and will continue to cause job losses. Data centers are driving up power prices. But only one of these problems is fixable.
The data center electricity price rises are a symptom of a broken energy market, not a problem caused by data centers. Any rise in energy intensive economic activity, including a rise in factory jobs, would have caused similar upward pressure on energy prices. The problem is the market is not responding to the price signal. Higher power prices should be a signal to increase supply, but something is preventing market participants from responding adequately to changes in demand.
The source of market friction is likely red tape. For example, Data Centers could be built with co-located modular nuclear power plants, so they don’t ruin anyone’s power bill. Such an arrangement would bring down prices and improve local grid reliability, by allowing the data center to support the local grid with their in-house nuclear reactor during data center quiet periods. But imagine trying to push that solution through today’s planning approval processes.
The problem which can’t be fixed is job losses. Job losses are sadly inevitable – restricting or banning data centers in the USA won’t stop this, because China and Asia will keep pushing forward regardless of what the USA does. China with its surplus of electricity generation capacity already has a significant advantage in the AI race.
Much of the USA’s economic and military advantage is because of the USA’s enormous global trade network. Trying to stop data centers in the USA because of their impact on jobs will destroy the USA’s global competitive advantage. If the USA turns its back on data centers and AI, economic rivals which embrace AI will be in a position to destroy the USA’s competitive advantage and usurp the trade networks which propelled the USA to become the world’s dominant superpower.
Retraining might help mitigate the impact of job losses – and I’m not talking about trite non-solutions like President Biden’s advice to “learn to code”. There are plenty of jobs AI can’t do, and won’t be able to do well for the foreseeable future. Any job which involves complex and unpredictable environments, such as trade jobs like gas fitters, plumbers and electricians, will resist AI encroachment for a very long time. There will be more robotic tools for such jobs, but such jobs will still need humans in the loop to analyse the problems and figure out the solutions, and make sure the robots don’t do anything stupid.
Of course if you can “learn to code”, the jobs of people who serve the AI – data scientists, top tier programmers and expert maintenance engineers – will have real staying power.
My point is the problem is real, but banning or restricting data centers is not a viable solution. We can’t turn the clock back on today’s technological advances, any more than textile workers in the 1800s could stop machine driven mass production of woven cloth. All that can be done, and should be done, is to act early to cushion the blow, to help people distressed about job insecurity to find new jobs which the AIs can’t steal, and to figure out how to fix the regulatory roadblocks which are causing electricity price misery for anyone who lives next door to new data centers.
Update: A few people have questioned whether coding jobs have staying power, there is a lot of media hype about coding jobs disappearing in the near future.
In the AI world, coding is a lot more resilient than people assume. Coding is the art of explaining to computers how to do stuff it cannot figure out for itself. If the AI enhanced machines no longer need coders and can figure out everything, nobody will have a job, and we are not there yet. But how we code is changing significantly.
The solution to Datacenters and Energy is a simple one. REQUIRE them to generate the needed MWhs of their own electricity necessary to fill their needs with any Surplus Generation being fed Into the Grid (one way…they can feed into the grid but not extract from). Their power needs are met by their capacity with no electric bill and any surplus goes out bringing in extra income…adding capacity to the grid to drive down pricing for residential customers.
Why limit this to data centers?
Why not require every factory and office building to generate their own power.
If we do this, electricity will be so cheap that they will have to pay us to use it.
Not sure it is practical with office building. It might be, but I remain skeptical at this time.
Some factories already have their own power generators. Expanding this might not be as simple as stated due to available land, etc. Still it could be practical if such issues are resolved.
An unintended consequence of adding it to existing manufacturing is the cost will likely be passed on with higher prices until the investment is recovered.
But the cost of running “every factory and office building” will be so high that we will need every dollar from the electric bill to pay for their products! Do you think it costs nothing to provide “emergency” generators for hospitals?
I agree with you that requiring anyone or any company to supply it’s own power is a stupid idea.
“REQUIRE them to generate the needed MWhs of their own electricity necessary to fill their needs with any Surplus Generation being fed Into the Grid”
Bryan, but remember that a main reason that Photovoltaic and Wind Turbines are so useless is because their power, being intermittent and unreliable, is very problematic to a grid that relishes base-load power scheduling and stability. Getting “any surplus” of data center’s own power production would be no better than the intermittent and unreliable “green” energy (that isn’t at all green). Now if the data center can reliably and consistently make, say, 100 MWhs from Nuclear or Natural Gas, while consistently needing only 75 MWhs, and can assure the grid with high confidence they can provide some roughly 20+ MWhs, the grid might would appreciate that as adjunct “base-load” – i.e. they can count on it; unlike costly Photovoltaic and Wind Turbine crap.
We could almost add non-base-load power (you know – the intermittent and unreliable crap) as a third problem to solve, And there is a relatively easy solution to that – get rid of it for good.
This would depend on how smart the datacenters are and what generation they chose.
One difference. Frequency stability. These SMRs will be able to connect to the grid cleanly, unlike WTG and SV. Nonetheless, the potential for unintended consequences cannot be handwaved off.
Try adding a FF generator anywhere (much less a data center) and then reap the $hit$torm from the regulators and enviros.
That is a fascist approach.
The utility industry should be building dependable, dispatch-able capacity to meet customer demand, like a business. If they had concentrated on that rather than useless green energy there would be no problem. Governments dictating what they build is the main problem.
Bad idea. The reason why the “energy transition” brings so much problems is that you are trying to force a centralized architecture into a decentralised pipedream.
Never ever gonna work unless you start all over again which is not an option.
Bernie Sanders Issues Dire Warnings
______________________________________
Pretty much says which side doesn’t like the economic benefits that AI and Data Centers will bring.
Fans of Barnes and Noble, Borders and Waldenbooks probably understand the situation.
For the last 15-20 years China has been adding coal and nuclear base load generating capacity in huge amounts. Some “experts” opined that they were adding more capacity than load growth would support at the time. The Chinese play the long game, and no doubt anticipated the AI revolution and the necessary energy demand to support it. And further explains their pushing the climate change hoax while never intending to abide by any of the restrictions that their competitors eagerly agreed to.
Considering that a high portion of China’s rural population still has limited/unreliable electricity, they do not have to project demand in order to add “huge amounts” to their generating capacity.
What other Chinese trends should we adopt?
The only thing the Chinese anticipated, if you can call it that, was growth in demand for electricity. They’ve actually been playing catchup, building power plants as fast as they can. They aren’t playing a “long game” nor did they anticipate the AI revolution. In fact they’re falling behind because they are hampered by a communist-controlled economy. They’re great at stealing intellectual property, copying, and doing it cheaper because labor costs are so much less because of their lower GDP per capita. But that’s changing as their people enjoy an increasing standard of living. As their economy transformed and grew and people moved from farms to cities to work in factories and demand the benefits of growing wealth, they needed to power all that. China doesn’t have large oil and gas resources so they use what they have: rivers, coal, nuclear, sunshine, wind and large tracts of land. They have huge wind and photovoltaic farms in addition to coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric plants. They didn’t “trick” the West. They just built PV cheaper for themselves and the West, so we bought from them. The problem is that it’s still a communist country with central planning and the Potemkin Country they’ve built to impress themselves and the world is crumbling. The main reason for the rapid rise in GDP is that they recognized the massive economic failure of strict communism and after the death of Mao allowed limited private entrepreneurship, in other words limited freedom. That rapid growth only lasts so long as every free market Western country experienced. India is also experiencing rapid economic growth after they cast off the stupidity of the socialism favored by Mahatma Gandhi and his successors. India more fully embraces decentralized economic freedom. China is run by the Chinese Communist Party and they are still devoted to communism and maintain tight control of every aspect of life and the economy. And they believe the climate change hoax as much as Western leftist elites, it’s just not as high a priority as they grappled with their rapid growth—that is now rapidly slowing and introducing, or exposing, a new set of problems.
Every technological advance has caused job losses, and yet somehow the world has improved and all of us are richer.
AI will be no different.
Productivity enhancements make the products that are made more abundant and lower in cost.
While productivity does mean there is less work to do, it also means we don’t have to work for as long or as hard to earn enough to buy what we need.
200 years ago, 95% of the population lived on farms, and they worked from from sun up to sun down, and sometimes a bit beyond, 6 days a week.
Also there were few if any holidays and no vacations. If you were sick, you still tried to work.
Today, we only work 40 hours a week and we can afford things our ancestors 200 years ago never even dreamed of.
But just because a product’s manufacture is reduced in cost doesn’t necessarily translate to a lower price for consumers.
As long as there are competitors, price will drop. For the simple reason that everybody is greedy. The first competitor to drop prices will gain market share and while they may not make quite as much profit per unit, when the larger volume is considered, they are making more money.
This process continues until all competitors are selling for the marginal cost of their production, plus enough profit to attract investors.
I’m not saying it won’t lead to lower prices, I’m saying there’s no guarantee that it would.
…
“doesn’t necessarily “
There is a guarantee. As long as government doesn’t get involved, prices WILL fall.
One must also look back at the hours and days worked at the earlier factories. They did not have 40 hour/5 day work weeks.
No, but the benefits of working in one of these earlier factories certainly must have exceeded those from working any of the now abandoned and heavily wooded farm fields that once covered much of rural New England.
Nor did they have today’s productivity rates. The factories of the day, were considered desirable employers compared to life on the farm and people flocked to them.
The “population” that “worked from sun up to sun down” included the farm children. Those who now spend their “productive hours” in mandatory public schools, producing nothing and “Learing” nothing!
Child labor continued until productivity increased to the point where the parents were able to earn enough on their own, to feed the family. By the time government got around to banning child labor, it was pretty much already gone. The only places where child labor was not banned, were family farms and family businesses. Coincidentally, these were the only places left where child labor still existed.
Could someone explain to me what these AI data will do?
Is not Wikipedia a data and information website? Does it use AI?
Two examples:
https://www.cfact.org/2026/02/27/ai-may-bring-a-cognitive-renaissance-to-human-thinking/
https://www.cfact.org/2025/12/29/cfact-comments-on-using-ai-to-understand-big-bodies-of-research/
AI is not data. AI is supercomputers fed data from data centers (massive arrays of hard drives).
AI can only do what it is programmed to do.
It is faster than your laptop by a significant amount and being co-located with the data centers, does not have the latency that slows down data access we experience.
What makes AI seem intelligent is the advancements made in the human language modules.
Thank you for the info. The AI data centers are actually data acquisition, processing and forwarding centers. In the old days when you wanted information, you went to the library and searched the card catalog. University libraries had many information sources such as the “Chemical Abstracts” and “Biology Abstracts”. Much older information was stored on microfilm.
Having language modules, does NOT guarantee practical intelligence. !
Search engines use a form of AI to first try to figure out what data you are asking for, then to sort through the data they have stored to find it.
Far, far from perfect and still subject to the biases of the humans who program the system.
For starters AI drew the picture at the top of this article. AI is real and having a significant impact.
I think AI induced job loss fears are overblown. A concrete example. It has already been shown that AI read mammograms increase cancer detection rates significantly. That is a good thing. But it doesn’t mean that radiologist doctors are put out of work. It only means their jobs and future training shift somewhat, with perhaps fewer MD’s choosing radiology as their specialty.
Another concrete example. AI should become very skilled at differential diagnosis. But that won’t put primary care and ER physicians out of work, either. It will make them better and more efficient.
Ironically, AI induced job losses are likely to be highest in the ‘tech’ sector, as AI learns to code. META is laying off 8000 this year partly because of AI. And proving yet again that Biden got it wrong.
Well Micky D’s cut numerous counter staff positions (entry level jobs) in favor of ordering kiosks.
That is automation, not AI.
To be more specific, that’s automation driven by large increases in minimum wage. The sad part is that the jobs replaced were often the first jobs for a large number of teenagers, which provided work experience and employment history.
Unfortunately the job losses by teenagers dates back before minimum wage shock.
This wasn’t the first minimum wage shock. That idiocy started almost 100 years ago. Every time the minimum wage has been increased, youth unemployment increased.
Yes almost all of the job loss speculation is automation and robotics, neither of which necessarily use AI. A huge public confusion.
Never went through a drive through lately? Most all have AI assistance answering your drive up and taking your order.
If one looks back to California raising their minimum wages for fast food and the consequences of price increases and fast food shops closing down, how did that really benefit the population in general?
McDonalds had a choice. Price themselves out of business with significant labor charges, or find a more efficient way of doing customer service.
You can now order McDonalds and pay using your smart phone and never see a kiosk.
For some time we have been able to order pizza for delivery, rather than calling or driving over. Not much difference, although I dislike what Dominos did to their packaging.
That has as much to do with rising minimum wage rates as it does to productivity improvements.
My take on the job losses is a form of virtue signalling – everyone showing the market they can do AI as well as everyone else. While AI improves productivity, I’ve seen little evidence AI can write new systems without a great deal of oversight from real coders.
To put it another way AI is as good at writing code as it is at writing articles. And we’ve all seen plenty of Ai slop articles.
Yes, back in the late 1960s, we were told that “office automation” was going to devastate the white collar workforce.
Still waiting . . .
Scheduled batch-processing of transactions is still commonplace.
Analysis of the transactional info such as buying habits of customers is where the action is now – keeping ahead of the demand / ordering / supply curve is what makes for competitive advantage.
(of course, this all means sfa to public servant bureaucracies)
There’s as much paper on my desk as there was when I first started back in the 1980’s. Could just be bad habits.
In my early career, my company was among the first wave of workplaces issuing personal computers to all of its employees (1983).
By the early 2000s, it became feasible conduct most work digitally. Around 2004, after continually being inundated by plans and reports being delivered as hardcopy, I put an end to it and required all communications and work product to be digital. I came to loath paper and never looked back. Printers, filing cabinets, and recycle bins became a thing of the past.
However, as recently as 2018, there was still a significant lag in digital accessibility of mapping and public information. There was also a significant lag in affordable work process software systems for small and mid sized enterprises and complex or highly technical jobs, such as environment, health and safety. The promise of revolutionary software systems of this sort remained somewhat elusive.
When I retired just this past December at age 72, we had cleared most of these technological hurdles. Part of that involved learning how to utilize the rapidly emergent AI tools. When used wisely, they are so far proving to be greatly beneficial.
The revolution in AI is difficult to grasp or predict as we launch into the unknown. As at least one commenter has noted, the digital AI world is not the same as the physical world, which real people with real jobs will be required to build operate and maintain. Food, energy, raw materials, processing, manufacturing, construction, maintenance, logistics are among the jobs that will be necessary for the foreseeable future, aided but not replaced by AI.
Just yesterday I designed and built a new garden gate. I did a better job of it by consulting AI and online videos, but in the execution of the job, it was up to me to pick up the raw materials and use my tools to build and hang the gate.
My employer has been pushing to use AI to analyze existing code and report on how it works. I’ve not been impressed so far. In the examples I’ve run the reports are simplistic and give me the same results I could have gotten on my own in about the same amount of time. I can see that in 10 to 15 years, with computers getting faster and presumably AI algorithms improving, the computers will probably be able to analyze the code faster than I can. My retirement is probably also about 10 to 15 years off.
One thing that has impressed me are the programs they use for ASQC analysis, these programs can analyze code and find many potential programming bugs.
I had a positive experience last weekend using AI to hunt down some code issues. About 50% of the time the AI suggestion helped, which is a lot better than zero, but not good enough to let it loose without supervision.
I’ve not been impressed so far.
I wasn’t very impressed at first, but when our company switched to Claude, I saw a vast improvement. It seems to be built for that sort of work.
It still absolutely needs human oversight, but used as a tool to streamline development I’ve been finding it useful.
I hear Cursor is good too but I haven’t used it. Pretty much all the other models out there are not good for code.
And internet / intranet / email was going to bring about the “paperless office”, rendering printers redundant / obsolete.
Canada’s health network still uses faxes to share diagnoses and prescriptions.
A symptom of government bureaucracy and lack of vision and creativity. In the healthcare industry of the United States, I am continually amazed at how many handwritten paper forms are required, even after the patient has just done all of that online prior to the visit. I try my best to get out of a doctors office without being handed a piece of paper. But that will change. Humans and human systems are adaptable, but there is always an essential time lag. Any replacement or improvement of an essential work process or system must go through rollout process. Crash an essential business process, and you might go out of business.
You want jobs? We got jobs. Just not for the the snow flakes who wanted to do marketing for non-profits.
“This Arkansas Town Is Humming With the Sound of Missile Making: To meet wartime demand, Camden is channeling its residents into defense manufacturing” By Chao Deng on May 17, 2026
https://www.wsj.com/business/this-arkansas-town-is-humming-with-the-sound-of-missile-making-d7a301ac
“Camden, Ark.—When the Pentagon put out an urgent call for rocket launchers and ammunition to send to Ukraine and replenish supplies at home in 2022, an answer came from an unlikely place: this remote southern pine-belt town, population around 10,000. The town faced a basic challenge: where to find enough workers to meet a surge in demand for weapons? …
“Lockheed’s immediate strategy: expand the pool of potential workers. It began inviting local high-school seniors and their parents to its Camden facility for tours. The contractor also started working with Southern Arkansas University Tech, a two-year community college in Camden, to ramp up apprenticeships, so it could more readily hire people who had never worked at a factory.”
A classic example of a good solution.
Remember the outcry when the personal computer explosion happened?
There will be ne industries created with lots of good paying “AI jobs” just like there were when the productivity promises of PC caused more work accomplished without a massive wave of unemployment.
“Of course if you can “learn to code”, the jobs of people who serve the AI – data scientists, top tier programmers and expert maintenance engineers – will have real staying power.” My understanding is ‘coding’ is one of the areas AI will really impact. Anything repetitive or complex is a big target for AI. Right now AI programmers are at the top of their game but if they do their job correctly they could eat themselves.
Anthropic has already introduced Claude Code. They will be eating themselves soon.
Coding is the art of explaining to a computer how to do stuff it can’t figure out for itself. If AI can replace coders, it can also replace everyone else. And we’re not quite there yet.
I’d like to see AI build a dry stacked stonewall out of field stone.
Exactly- complex and unpredictable environment.
Give it time. Right now the biggest problem is the sensors to measure the rocks to figure out their size and shape. After that, it’s merely pattern matching, searching through all the rocks in it’s inventory and figuring out which one best fits in the hole in front of it.
I worked in a wood shop for a year back in the early 2000’s. We had automated saws that would take a standard size piece of lumber and then cut out pieces we needed to build the furniture that had been requested. After cutting out what it needed, a nearby printer printed out a label with a control number that we stuck to the lumber and put it into standby storage.
As often as not when we punched in what we needed to make, the computer would request a piece from standby rather than a brand new sheet.
Admittedly this was 2 dimension not 3, but it was also 25 years ago.
Coding is the art of explaining to a computer…
One thing AI is really good at is allowing you to explore a multitude of possible solutions much faster. It’s also great for deep search, especially if you’re working with an insanely complicated API with mediocre or worse documentation.
Half the time the “documentation” is the guy who wrote the code, and he retired 3 years ago.
I don’t remember such a backlash against the spread of the Internet, aka the “information superhighway”, in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Yes, jobs were lost via disintermediation, i.e. travel agents, letter carriers, and the like. But things are different with AI. Along with AI’s thirst for electricity, we’re seeing AI slop and fakes, the theft of copyright material, and more. Most people don’t care about AI’s ability to help computer programmers.
AI is having a bigger impact. But there are still a lot of jobs outside the set of jobs AI can do.
One job category that the internet has decimated have been mailmen.
There seems to be a shortage of male men too…
Here in Temple, TX there is a fight against planned data centers. The main issue for many is the flat out refusal for the city council and Rowan to release pertinent information. How much electricity and water the data centers will use.
Why is it necessary to hide data and facts?
The city has a large industrial area with plenty of room for new businesses. But the data centers will be in the eastern, rural part of the city and cover productive agricultural land, (farming and ranching). Many people question that decision too.
I completely understand your concerns, failure to ensure adequate infrastructure to prevent data centers being a major drag on everyone else is a big issue.
This kind of objection to loss of jobs has been staged for every technology improvement: sewiing machines, harvesters, autos, etc. and yet with every one our GDP per person has continued to go up. In the end we will all be better off with AI. As Bryan A says below. There is an easy, but not necessarily the best on, and that is to let them provide their own electricity. But when things get more rational we will find that having a large steady load (and revenue) on the grid will ge benefitial.
From my close monitoring of Republican Party politics, it is clear that the issue of AI data centers and their long-term negative effects on a community — both the infrastructure problems and the job losses among white collar workers — that issue is emerging as a major concern among Republican-leaning voters, especially among those in the MAGA wing of the party.
Any politician of either political party who ignores these emerging concerns about AI data centers does so at his or her own peril. How strongly a politician or a public official opposes new data centers in their own community has the potential to become the winning or losing issue for that politician in the upcoming 2026 mid-terms.
Oh, I get it! Under normal conditions, climate change is a hoax, but with AI, it returns to reality. So now we must beg government to save us from AI and pay them dearly to do it.
Absolutely- the UN is jumping ship onto AI as fast as they can.
I hate to be in the position of defending AI yet here I am. I don’t buy into the idea that job losses, water usage or power usage are reasons to not go forward with AI. Nearly every innovation has caused some job loses it is inevitable and really sucks for the people who lose their job. If we didn’t accept those loses we would still be plowing our fields with mules. In the case of water use I think it is for cooling. Do we consider the water used for cooling to be lost? If we can conserve the coolant used in our automobiles why can’t we conserve the coolant for AI? Considering power I have suggested from the beginning that the tech companies invest in the building of new power stations, doing this would seem to provide excess capacity. We mustn’t waste our investments on wind and solar rather build nuclear to insure plenty of fossil fuel for our hot rods.
Whether it is called Artificial Ignorance or Actual Inference, the current AI drive is a race to see which one runs out of funding last. For that will be the true winner.
As we get closer to that point in time, the true cost of usage will be revealed.
Rather than limiting AI usage and re-hire the people who it replaced, I expect there will just be less.
How to cause AI machines to self-immolate and thus free mankind of their potential tyranny over human thought:
Just ask one AI bot (e.g., OpenAI’sChatGPT):
— (a) is it smarter than all other current AIs (e.g., Google’s Gemini),
— (b) to document why that is or isn’t so, and
— (d) if it isn’t the smartest AI around, ask shouldn’t it then self-destruct to improve overall intelligence on Earth?
Anybody remember the original Star Trek TV episode “The Changeling” (Season 2, Episode 3)? In that show, Captain Kirk encounters an ancient, super-powerful but malfunctioning space probe named “Nomad” which has a jiggered primary directive to sterilize all “imperfections”, including Earth. Kirk uses a logic paradox to cause the probe to self-destruct.
See this excerpt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLPIrcMmCl8
/sarc (but then again, maybe not)
That worked in “Wargames” as well, they used Tic Tac Toe to prove to the military computer preparing a first strike that some games are unwinnable
They did something similar in one of the Harvey Mudd episodes. Spock told the android “I always lie”. The android got stuck in a logic loop,
If Spock always lies, then the statement that he always lies, is a lie.
Well you either plug in a data center to run your climate models or a virtue signalling EV fleet. Hey isn’t it fun when leftist ecotards get slapped by their own socialist rationing?
Lack of electricity? Build back waayy better, simply by scrapping all this suistanable ecoBS and revive coal and nuclear plants.
I’m no big fan of this growing digital world but mostly because of ballooning governments. New real jobs can be found and created – always will and always has , but therefore state intervention and regulations must go. So far AI is not the threat per se…idiots who want to “use” it are.
“A few people have questioned whether coding jobs have staying power, there is a lot of media hype about coding jobs disappearing in the near future.”
As someone currently employed in the industry, and with a son also (until recently) in the industry – what I’m seeing is that a lot of companies have stopped hiring junior developers in favor of seniors with AI. Jobs for juniors are down over 70% over the last couple of years.
This is very short-sighted on the part of the companies doing this: what happens when those seniors retire and there is nobody left to do the job?
So long-term, yes, those jobs will be there, but there certainly is a short-term bump, and those interested in pursuing it may need to find other employment until they open up again.