You really don't know how the internet works do you?

Datacenters don't use much water. They don't make much noise. They don't use much land. The only thing they do is use a lot of is power - but they actually build MORE power than they need and return power to the grid.

People need to give up their home computers and phones and access to the internet if they hate datacenters so much.

There is no problem with quadrupling datacenters, like at all, not even a little bit. The ground has far more resources than we could ever use and randomly deciding now is the time to stop growth for x reason or y reason is completely performative. You could have said the same thing when datacenters were at 1/4th the amount they are now. The grid is already weak and creating more demand for power will actually strengthen the grid not weaken it. If you have ever taken a flight across the country in a window seat you can see that 99% of the time is spent flying over empty ground. There is absolutely nothing that should limit datacenter construction. Maybe you don't want one right next to your house, that's fine. But stopping them state wide or country wide is absolutely ridiculous. It will be like another nuclear power protest. Nuclear power is extremely clean and would have helped us, but for some reason people had no idea the 'smoke stacks' actually only emitted water vapor.

Electronics have in fact gone down in cost significantly, the only thing keeping prices higher is because a higher quality is being offered. Instead of a 1080p TV now for the same price you get a 4K TV for example. Your computer chip is 100x as powerful as it was 20 years ago and costs the same.

Data centers have existed for the last 30 years for running the internet and complaining now about new datacenters is 100% performative.

That is not how economics works. AI only makes money if it provides utility and makes people more productive. If a person or company can produce 100 of something in an hour instead of 1 of something in an hour with AI, that means everyone is richer because that thing costs 100 times less. As with all technological advances, the people of today have better amenities, access to information, and individual power than kings did 200 years ago. AI productivity will be no different.

Yes, some companies will make money but that's only because AI gives so much power to individuals that people will gladly pay for the utility of it. AI is the ultimate equalizer because individuals will be able execute on ideas without needing a big company to compete.

The entire "AI Slop" issue is only because the slop is what people recognize and despise ,however AI also creates magnificent works of art. In some cases the art won competitions before being revealed it was AI. There was also a case where somewhere posted a famous Monet painting that was very real, but claimed it was AI. The response was as expected: everyone called it soulless, robotic, awful, horrible, and all sorts of bad things, not knowing it was a true 'work of art' by a genius. The point is AI is already here forever, but like a paintbrush in the hands of a 2 year old, AI can create horrible slop, while in the hands of someone with skill it can create masterpieces.

Does anyone remember the massive panic around Claude's Mythos - that was entirely due to this CEO. Not even 6 months after that there are open source models with zero restrictions that are as or more powerful than Mythos and somehow the world has not ended. For those paying attention Mythos was not the first model this CEO said was dangerous, he said models 3 years ago that were 1/10th as powerful were also extremely dangerous. From my experience only his product, Claude, has been the most dangerous because it simply takes actions I didn't ask it to do. I would be coding something and just ask a question like "What is the best way to backup this project?" and it goes off on its own and creates a backup in a folder that I never gave it access to.

Not a fan of cameras on every corner however their gunshot detectors seem like a good idea.

Why stop at social media? Ban the internet altogether, its unsafe! Also force children to wear helmets at all times and make them wear bubble wrap clothes.

You heard about that because they got caught. If you don't feel its equal then don't make a prediction, that simple. Insider trading is explicitly illegal already and they often go after the bad actors. It's not hard at all to catch someone who has an extremely abnormal winning steak in a very specific topic.

These markets are set up in a way to explicitly follow the current federal laws. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with these marketplaces, some may consider it gambling but in all cases the element of randomness is far less than a coin flip. You can research for as long as you wish before making a prediction. As long as the game being played is not a game of coin flip or on a random outcome, then these markets have a place where those who do the most research or have the most correct research can and do succeed. These markets can even be used as a tool for financial hedging. Lets say you have a restaurant outside a stadium, and you know if the team wins you will get $10,000 in income but if they lose people go straight home and you will only get $2,000. Let's say odds are 50% in the market, then you can simply place a $4,000 bet on that team LOSING, now if they lose you make $4,000+$2,000 or $6,000, but if they win you make only $6,000 in restaurant income. You just "hedged" and now the prediction market helped you drastically smooth our your income and lower your risk, the exact opposite of a gamble.

There is not hypocrisy because Congress passed laws to require these financial institutions to be federally regulated. I assume when you refer to states rights claims you are referring to abortion law however in that decision by the Supreme Court, the justices explicitly said the reason power was passed backs to states was because congress never passed a law legalizing it in the first place. When there is not a clear written down rule that is what can happen. Both of that outcome and this CFTC outcome are following the letter of the law, and either of outcomes these can easily be changed by passing a law. I don't know about you but I'd much rather have laws you can understand because they are written down and voted on by Congress, rather than operating based on 'decisions' by the court that depends on their political leanings.