The Feb. 12 editorial “Bernie Sanders’s worst idea yet” rightly highlighted the imprudence of Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vermont) “proposed moratorium on data center construction.”
From someone who once proclaimed, “We should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people,” Sanders’s proposal is a marked departure from how these countries manage burgeoning demand for data centers. Indeed, the Nordics are experiencing a “data center boom” and even Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said he was excited by news that a $10 billion data center for artificial intelligence would be built in his hometown.
Data center construction and associated AI growth will be disruptive for American workers, but the solution is not “a government diktat” that will harm American productivity and progress. Instead, Sanders should advocate embracing the Nordic Model — a system that pairs free-market capitalism with a robust welfare state. Such a model could mitigate the risks that data center construction portends for American workers and enable the U.S. to capitalize on AI-driven growth.
T. Michael Spencer, Washington
Kudos for the Feb. 12 editorial which called out Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) for wanting to ban new data centers and thereby halt artificial intelligence development.
The promise of AI, and the perils of living in a world where China leads in technology, should transcend partisan politics. Fortunately, both the Trump administration and the leaders of the Democratic Party disagree with Sanders on this issue.
In announcing a new House Democratic commission on AI on Dec. 9, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York) said America is positioned “to lead the world in artificial intelligence and pioneer potentially life-changing breakthroughs in medicine and other fields of human endeavor that will benefit humanity.”
In his State of the State speech on Feb. 3, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) said, “The United States is locked in a battle for AI supremacy against China. I don’t know about you, but I’d much rather the future be controlled by the United States of America and not communist China.”
Though it’s too much to expect that everyone will be on board with AI, that so many leaders are on board is a positive development.
Paul F. Steidler, Arlington
The writer is a senior fellow at the Lexington Institute.
The Feb. 12 editorial about Bernie Sanders distorted what the democratic socialist senator from Vermont and others are calling for, which is a responsible, thoughtful, democratic approach to a technology advancing faster than our institutions, laws and ethical frameworks can keep up with.
Artificial intelligence is already redefining labor markets, surveillance, education, health care and warfare. Pretending that such power should be left entirely to private corporations is an abdication of government responsibility.
The suggestion that businesses should simply be allowed to “develop organically” does not account for the fact that corporate success in the United States has long been underwritten by public funds. Big Business has grown through subsidies, tax breaks, deregulation and public investments.
The real questions are who gets to control AI, who gets to benefit from it and who bears the consequences if it fails.
Andy Shallal, Washington
The writer is founder and CEO of Busboys and Poets.
Space solar energy could be viable
In the 1970s, while managing the Energy Department’s renewable electricity programs, I was asked by NASA to fund a research and development effort on space solar power. I agree with Michelle L.D. Hanlon’s Feb. 13 op-ed, “This technology could revolutionize electricity — from space,” that every step of collecting solar power in space, converting it to microwave energy that is then beamed through the atmosphere to ground station receivers and turned into electricity suitable for grid distribution, has been long successfully demonstrated.
The two problems that kept me from agreeing to NASA’s request were the costs of putting large solar arrays in stable orbits around the Earth and the dangers associated with concentrating lots of power in the large arrays that would be required for cost-effective power generation.
Significant progress has been made in intervening years in reducing the costs of lifting materials into orbit, but the concentration concern persists. Given the vulnerability of orbiting objects to interference and even destruction by unfriendly forces, the risk of putting gigawatt arrays into space requires careful consideration. An alternate option is to place many smaller mobile solar power systems in orbit for specific applications such as support for remote locations or disaster relief. If the economics are now viable, it is an option worth considering.
Allan R. Hoffman, Reston
The writer is a retired senior analyst at the Energy Department.
How we got up-to-date
Thomas V. DiBacco’s Feb. 16 letter to the editor, “Presidents’ Day doesn’t exist,” stated that George Washington “was born on Feb. 11, 1731, when the Julian calendar held sway. But in 1752, the Brits, and thus the American colonies, adopted the Gregorian calendar and Washington’s birthday was moved one year and 11 days later to Feb. 22, 1732.” This requires additional explanation.
Before 1752, New Year’s Day in England was observed on March 25. Thus, Dec. 31, 1750, was followed by Jan. 1, 1750, and March 24, 1750, was followed by March 25, 1751.
Starting in 1752, this changed to the convention we use today: The day following Dec. 31, 1751, became Jan. 1, 1752.
So Washington’s birthday was moved from the year 1731 to 1732, as if the new convention for New Year’s had been in force the year he was born.
The change from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar occurred the day after Sept. 2, 1752, which became Sept. 14, 1752 (an 11-day correction from Sept. 3).
Bert Katz, Wheaton
The post Should the U.S. slow AI’s growth? appeared first on Washington Post.
