TJ Walker argues the AI backlash isn't about abstract fears but about data centers that drain local electricity and water while profits go to tech giants. He proposes ten policies: charge real electricity rates, require community benefits agreements, ban secret deals, limit water use, tie tax breaks to permanent jobs, and create a local dividend for residents hosting the infrastructure.
Chapters
Ultimize. Across the United States, a broad and unusual backlash is forming against artificial intelligence, not as an abstract concept but as a physical economic force reshaping local communities in real time. What began as a debate about software is now a fight over land use, electricity, water, and political power. The New York Times reports that opposition now spans evangelical leaders concerned about AI relationships musicians facing copyright erosion, farmers worried about water depletion, environmentalists focused on energy consumption, and populist voices on both the left and right questioning why the benefits of AI appear concentrated while the costs are increasingly local. At the center of this conflict is the modern data center. They are not passive facilities. They are energy-intensive industrial operations requiring massive electrical loads, significant water for cooling, new transmission infrastructure, and often substantial public subsidies. So when residents say they are against AI, what they're often reacting to is something much more concrete: rising electric bills, strained water supplies, backroom political deals, and the sense that they are paying for a technological revolution they don't actually benefit from. The concern is not abstract. It is economic, it's local, and it's very real. Across the country right now, people say they're against AI, but what they actually mean is this: they don't want their electricity bill going up so a tech company can train a chatbot to sound more empathetic than their ex. They don't want millions of gallons of local water going to cool servers while farmers are being told to conserve. They definitely don't want politicians cutting quiet deals with trillion-dollar companies only to tell the public after it's already done. This isn't fear of technology. This is people realizing the costs are local and the profits are not. And for the first time, communities are starting to say, if AI's coming here, we're not going to pay for it. We're charging for it. Okay, now here's the part that makes people uncomfortable. But it happens to be true. You don't get to vote. You don't get to vote technology out of existence. You can dislike it. You can protest it. You can post about it all day long. The loom still came. The automobile replaced the stagecoach. Technology— television crushed radio. And AI is not going to stop because a town council passes a resolution saying, we're not fans. But technology is undefeated, always has been, which means the real question isn't whether AI is coming. The real question is who pays and who benefits? Because right now the pattern looks very familiar. A handful, a tiny handful of companies capture enormous upside and everybody else gets higher energy costs and infrastructure strain. So instead of trying to stop AI, Communities need to get smarter about how they deal with it. Here's what that actually looks like. If a giant AI data center wants to come to your town, here's a radical idea: make them pay for it. Not symbolic payments, real ones. If they need new power lines, they pay. If they strain the grid, they pay. If they use massive amounts of water, they pay. Because right now the deal is upside down. Big Tech gets the profits and regular people get higher utility bills. So flip it. Charge data centers higher electricity rates. Force them to invest in local infrastructure. Make them fund schools, roads, and emergency services. Because if your town is hosting the infrastructure of the AI revolution, you shouldn't be paying for it. You should be getting a dividend from it. First, data centers must pay true cost of electricity, not discounted rates negotiated behind closed doors. If a facility requires new substations, transmission lines, and grid upgrades, the company should pay for it, not residents. Because nothing says the future is here like your air conditioning bill doubling so a chatbot can generate knock-knock jokes. Second, create a separate AI utility rate. If a facility consumes power like a small city, it shouldn't be billed like a local restaurant. Communities can charge significantly higher rates for hyperscale data centers, especially during peak demand, because during the heat wave, the priority should be people, not servers. Third, mandatory community benefits agreements. No deal, no data center. If a company wants access to your land in your community and infrastructure, it funds schools, broadband, emergency services, and long-term community investments. Not just PR stunts, not innovation hubs with beanbag chairs, actual measurable financial benefits. Fourth, let's ban the secret negotiations. Too many of these deals are structured before the public even knows they exist. Florida's already taken steps requiring public notice and limiting nondisclosure agreements. This should be standard everywhere, because if a deal can't survive public scrutiny, it probably shouldn't exist. Fifth, strict water usage rules. Some proposed data centers would use millions of gallons of water per day. That's not minor impact, that's industrial-scale consumption. So require public reporting, drought contingencies, and automatic usage limits. If residents are conserving water, AI should do it too. Sixth, no tax breaks without real jobs. Many of these projects create short-term construction jobs, but very few permanent positions. Like, you know, a handful sometimes. If a facility uses massive resources but employs minimal people, it's not economic development, it's infrastructure extraction. Seventh, require local clean energy investment. No more accounting tricks with renewable credits purchased elsewhere. If the data center is local, the energy solution should be local— solar, wind, storage— something that benefits the actual grid. Otherwise, It's environmental outsourcing. 8. Use the waste heat. Data centers produce enormous amounts of heat. That energy can be redirected to heat buildings, schools, or greenhouses. If you're generating it anyway, use it. 9. Create a local AI dividend. If a community hosts the infrastructure powering AI, residents should receive Direct benefits, utility credits, tax relief, education funding, because right now most people are seeing the opposite, a surcharge. 10th, real penalties for violations. If companies exceed water limits or strain infrastructure, penalties should be meaningful, not symbolic fines, consequences that actually change behavior. The goal here is not to stop AI. I don't think that's realistic. The goal is to stop being passive participants in a system where the costs are local and the profits are global. Because technology may be undefeated, but that doesn't mean communities have to be. AI can come to your town. It just needs to show up like a good neighbor, not like a vampire with a building permit. And if Silicon Valley says you're standing in the way of the future, The correct response is no, we're charging rent to the future and the future can't afford it. I'm TJ Walker. There is lots more to come. Stay tuned. I'll be honest with you. Most people don't have a learning problem. They have a consistency problem. They'll watch something, listen to something, get fired up for a day, and then life takes over and everything resets. That's exactly the gap I'm trying to fix with Ultimize. So if you're getting something out of this show right now, go to ultimize.com, U-L-T-A-M-I-Z-E, and get a free course. There's one on communication skills, one on building better habits. And the whole idea is to make this part of your daily routine, not a one-time thing. It's simple, it's free, and it actually works if you use it. ultimize.com. Ultimize.
