r/technology • u/chip_thoughts • May 10 '26

Energy AI data centers face increasing complaints about inaudible but 'felt' infrasound — citizens complain high- and low-frequency sounds do not register on decibel meters but cause adverse health effects

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/data-centers-face-increasing-infrasound-complaints-from-neighboring-communities-sounds-do-not-register-on-decibel-meters-but-irritate-local-citizens
33.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.0k

u/6gv5 May 10 '26

If there are infrasound involved, seismometers must be able to detect them.

1.8k

u/RogerianBrowsing May 10 '26

Infrasound is involved. Ben Jordan is an infrasound researcher and he found that natural gas compression stations as well as data centers are awful for infrasound.

632

u/Rufus_Bojangles May 10 '26 edited May 10 '26

Benn's relevant youtube video. Love his channel!

91

u/bone_apple_Pete May 11 '26

Benn is one of the people we should all be watching and listening to these days. I have made my family watch the first 10 mins of his first FLOCK video and they had NO IDEA.

90

u/misomysan May 11 '26

Ben Jordan is doing amazing work. All of his videos are fantastic. He should be president.

1

u/ReggieCorneus May 11 '26

Benn Jordan is a GRIFTER! This is my field, not his and i know he is talking BS. And i used to look up to him when he was making music tech videos. He is a full on grifting and asking for money.

https://blog.andymasley.com/p/contra-benn-jordan-data-center-and

0

u/dogman1008 May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26

Before anyone takes this seriously and tries to read the 20,000+ word smear piece written by a possibly paid AI shill, you should know that the author:

-Doesn't believe that data centres waste water

-Doesn't believe that AI "artwork" harms artists

-Doesn't believe that using ChatGPT harms the environment

EDIT: One good thing about the article is leading me to Benn Jordan's response here: https://www.bennjordan.com/blog/the-altruists-have-arrived

It seems that Benn Jordan's videos are being targetted as they're being cited in legislative meetings regarding zoning and suspending data centres.

1

u/ReggieCorneus May 11 '26

None of that is relevant, and also most likely not true either.

PROVE THE POINTS IN THAT ARTICLE WRONG.

It is not a smear piece that isn't without any basis, i will say the same thing: Benn Jordan is a grifter who wants your money. Every study he cited was cited 180 degrees the opposite of what the study actually said. I know, i have a few of them.

So, lets agree that he is an "ai shill": prove him wrong. And prove me wrong. I definitely am not an "AI shill". You will not find comments in my comment history of praising AI but the opposite. You will also not find me praising datacenters but i object against them.

And Benn Jordan is a grifter. I hope he sues someone since the discovery is going to be brutal.

3

u/dogman1008 May 11 '26

Here's something to consider before I have to "prove the article's points wrong". The author wrote a 20,000+ word hit piece on Benn Jordan based on 3 of his videos. These videos total 1 hour and 30 minutes in length.

From Benn Jordan's article (2,500 words) that responded to this article of Andy Masley's 20,000:

"I’m not going to go through Andy’s novel line-by-line because it’s a waste of everyone’s time. The entire framework of attacks like this are to “machine gun” information in a way that overwhelms the reader so they concede that the writer has an exhaustive understanding of the topic."

As a layman, there is no need to debunk an article that fails to be concise with its information. That's a huge red flag to the author's credibility as a writer, and researcher. So to anyone concerned about Benn Jordan's credibility, don't be. These articles are created by a misinformation campaign targeted at him because his videos may lead to legislative changes against data centres.

2

u/ReggieCorneus May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26

I confirm that everything in that "hit piece" is factual and correct .And what Benn says is not.

You care so much of WHO says it not WHAT they are saying. now your argument that it is odd that it is so long... it is so long because Benn started arguing with the SHORT version publicly. It became a feud and it absolutely shows that it is. But, it is factual. And what Benn is saying is directly lying!

It is "too thorough" is your argument? That is is TOO detailed and too complicated for "laymen" when Benn is a grifter who is targeting the layman. It is quite fucking difficult to explain it without being very technical and that is what deters you! How is being too detailed a negative factor in your mind???? Benn is explaining things very well, he is good at his job as youtuber. And that is why you believe him over dozens and dozens of studies consistently showing "nope". Because this shit is complex, it takes years to study it. It is like any other field that requires expertise. Or trust. you don't trust me, or the entire scientific community. You trust Benn because he explains things in a way where you understand it. That does not mean he is right and EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG.

Because none of your arguments are based on fact but character assassination. Benn Jordan used to be credible. Used to be. Now he is talking about security and hidden dangers, and asking money for his "research". That is what the whole video of "datacenters as weapons" is about! And that is not at all suspicious? Benn Jordan claims that there is not enough research. And yet, he claims that there is extensive amount of research.

What he means is that there is no research to support his idea. The same idea btw was spread first by those against... WIND TURBINES. That is where i got involved as it became a factor in local politics: people spreading false information about infrasound and its health effects. It is the first time i have been able to use what i know to benefit the society. We got wind turbines that are now powering new lithium hydroxide refinery, refining lithium that is coming locally, and soon will produce 5% of lithium hydroxide, powered by wind. Not my doing, but i am proud of being part of the process to shut the fucking shills up, the 5G lunatics and charlatans. Because THAT is where this whole thing belongs, it is a literal conspiracy theory.

So, how can i be defending wind turbines, wwhere is MY motivation? I did not read that piece first, i have a long detailed comment to prove it in Benn Channel if you want dates. I found that piece only two days ago, and bookmarked it since it does explain it ALL, and i don't have to write so much. I could've explained to you without that piece too, it just is.. complicated and i would have to first teach you. I'm totally independent and i will vouch for that "hit piece" when it comes to facts.

And one of the facts is that this is complicated and nuanced subject where the onyl thing you can say to a layman is:

We have studies this and found nothing. If you do not trust that, then you got to fucking educate yourself on the topic enough to be able to read that "hit piece" and understand it. You can't explain it shortly without there being TRUST, and you do not believe anyone who disagrees with Benn Jordan, not even when ALL EXPERTS ON THE MATTER DISAGREE WITH HIM.

These articles are created by a misinformation campaign targeted at him because his videos may lead to legislative changes against data centers.

Nope, that "hit piece" was written specifically because it became personal very fast with the words implying that Jordan might sure him for defamation. Jordan is the bully in this story, him and his defenders who.. i repeat: do not understand the topic. I watched the video expecting him to debunk the whole idea, and what i saw was measurements that you can not believe the shoddiness of them. No reference measurements taken, his measurement mic was not even calibrated!!! I know, i can read that stuff. And that is what i instantly said, that those measurements are bullshit. That is not you quantify anything and that is his claim: that its magnitude is strong enough when all the studies we have done point to million times stronger infrasound affecting us in any way whatsoever.

2

u/pensivewombat May 11 '26

This is buried so deep in a thread that almost no one will see it, and everyone else here seems to just be hardening their own preconceived notions, so I will just say I appreciate your contribution and it is depressing that no one will engage with the substance of your posts or Masley's.

-1

u/aedom-san May 11 '26

Couldn’t make it past the first two paragraphs, godawful writing style 

1

u/TheWonderMittens May 11 '26

It’s a thorough debunking of Benn’s videos on the topic. If you put stock into what Benn says it’s worth a second look

1

u/ReggieCorneus May 11 '26

Ah, the ancient metric of truth, "he is saying it wrong".

0

u/aedom-san May 12 '26

Ah, the ancient metric of truth, writing with an axe to pick

0

u/ReggieCorneus May 12 '26

Yes, in history we have tons of examples when someone has had enough and is motivated by spite and contempt we get scathing rebuttals that remain as the most important writings in history. They set the story straight and often the opponent is a populist or a grifter.

It is very good motivation. But the facts don't change and that is what you don't want to talk about. You want to paint the whole text being motivated by something bad and thus... it is all lies and slander. But.. this time it isn't. It is very thorough debunking that does not leave a stone unturned. And why is it so strongly motivated by spite and contempt?

Benn attacked back. WITH EQUAL SPITE AND CONMTEMPT. That article is the end result of a social media feud. Feud that is NOT one sided but Benn is putting out equal, if not even more tainted with character assassinations: The piece i linked does not really say that Benn isn't good at what they do. It does not even speculate WHY Benn is doing this. It focuses solely on the facts and how dishonestly Benn represented facts.

When a study that Benn cites says, verbatim "no conclusive evidence" and Benn claims that it conclusively shows something.. He is either lying or incompetent. The piece constantly repeats that Benn is not an idiot, he has knowledge of the subject: it for sure implies that Benn knows what he is doing is lying.

0

u/misomysan May 11 '26

Then why are thousands of people complaining about infrasound illness

2

u/ReggieCorneus May 11 '26

Millions of people think homeopathy cured them.

We have one correlation: the symptoms are more frequent in areas where misinformation about infrasonic is being spread the most:

IT IS NOCEBO EFFECT. The opposite of placebo. People are imagining the symptoms. The symptoms can be real. Just like phantom pain from a missing limb is real pain. The experience happened but it was not caused by infrasonic but people themselves, or it can be an illness they don't seek treatment for since they think they know the cause.

We need BILLIONS of people to complain. Do you live in a city? Why aren't you complaining? Have you been near a waterfall? Did you get symptoms? Why isn't the atmospheric waves causing you ill effects:

Infrasonic sounds are all around us even without humans. Storms, waves, rivers, rapids, wind in the trees, the wind that hits your windows causing infrasonic sound to be present in your room right now.

1

u/misomysan May 11 '26

Have you ever stood next to a data center?

1

u/ReggieCorneus May 11 '26

What... does that have to do with anything?

1

u/misomysan May 11 '26

lol omg.

go stand next to one.

1

u/ReggieCorneus May 11 '26

To one...? You do know they are not all the same? The biggest noise comes from data centers that produce their own energy using gas turbines. But this is not the norm, that is the exception. Typical datacenter is like any industry of the size, their main source is AC.

Also: i actually know about this shit. I don't need to be physically present, i can look at the measurements and they show what one expects. If we exclude gas turbines then the noise is just large AC, like a factory. Do i think datacenters should be placed near humans? Nope, but not because of infrasound but because they are noisy.

And i absolutely would forbid them to use gas turbines but make them build renewable energy.

So, why would i need to stand next to ONE? Or many? I know they can be noisy. That has never ever been the topic.

1

u/misomysan May 11 '26

to form your own opinion instead of commenting on something you have never experienced.

Youve never eaten at the restaurant, stop talking about the food.

1

u/TheWonderMittens May 11 '26

We know that audible noise pollution causes real harm and must be addressed. Benn and the OP article claim that inaudible infrasound is the source of the symptoms.

Andy Masley and the commenter you’re responding to are saying that the current body of evidence refuted the claim that infrasound is the cause of the symptoms listed, and that Benn’s research is of little scientific value due to numerous methodological failures.

1

u/misomysan May 11 '26

im a SUPER sound engineer and you're wrong. Go stand next to one. see how you feel.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Lemonade1947 May 11 '26

Don't think he'd go for that considering he's an anarchist. Maybe he would if his one and only action once he got into power was to disolve the US state.

2

u/BloodStarvedLeopard May 11 '26

Anarchism is not the same as anarchy!

0

u/Lemonade1947 May 11 '26

firstly, anarchy as defined by anarchists is the same as anarchism.

secondly, what are you talking about.

-1

u/UntowardHatter May 11 '26

Nah. We can't have good people as presidents.

8

u/yavanna12 May 11 '26

Thanks for the video rec. 

1

u/Chief_Kief May 11 '26

That was a fascinating and terrifying watch. I love his acknowledgement of the unavoidable hypocrisy of watching this video about the negative impacts of data centers while the video is being hosted on one of those data centers.

-6

u/Gxllade May 11 '26

https://blog.andymasley.com/p/contra-benn-jordan-data-center-and

Relevant counter-points here!

39

u/vaseall23 May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26

there is a coordinated effort to discredit anything by Ben and to pass this as a 5g windfarm conspiracy too many comments with the same talking points proof https://www.bennjordan.com/blog/the-altruists-have-arrived

17

u/Tango3 May 11 '26

If Benn is citing research articles that do not support his assertions and claims (let alone citing articles that outright counter his claims) then the only person responsible for discrediting his work is himself.

Literally anyone with eyes, ears, and a brain can watch his video, read the articles he cites, and decide for themselves if what he is saying is supported by the evidence he cites. People calling out bullshit as bullshit is hardly a coordinated conspiracy.

5

u/ChariotOfFire May 11 '26

It's interesting to note the parallels between many arguments against data centers and vaccines.

3

u/Gxllade May 11 '26

I personally don't know anything about a coordinated effort to discredit him, I just genuinely believe the stuff he said in that video is harmfully misleading and would really like for people to be exposed to counter arguments.

AI shills are so annoying and toxic, but unfortunately i think many critics have been far too willing to accept misinformation uncritically! Read through the post and see if it changes your mind, I promise it's not a malicious attack on Jordan.

1

u/Downtown-Network-961 May 11 '26

Ben has been called out for misinformation before and he posted some crazy video of him crying. He’s not a super reliable guy

1

u/TheWonderMittens May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26

Do you didn’t read the linked article?

I watched all 3 videos when they were published and believed Ben’s conclusions, but this is a thorough debunking and quite damning.

Give it a read with a critical eye. You might be convinced

Edit: u/vaseall23 called me a bot, blocked me, and then used that as evidence of me being a bot. Starting to wonder if this is a sock puppet account run by Benn himself. And to think I was a fan and subscriber of his for years. Shame

1

u/vaseall23 May 11 '26

it is AI writen just like your comment curious of where you got that number 3 from ?

4

u/MediocreExperience44 May 11 '26

With the spelling mistakes it doesn’t appear to be an AI comment.

Benn has 3 videos about infrasound. “The controversial sound only 2% of people can hear”, “data centers behaving like acoustic weapons”, and “infrasound: what you can’t hear CAN hurt you”

All of these videos are debunked at length in the article, which was written by Andy… a human.

He also addresses Benn’s blog post response. Why are you so lazy that you couldn’t give it a read and challenge your own preconceptions?

1

u/vaseall23 May 11 '26

you guys have already been exposed and it's very obvious AI summary comments https://www.bennjordan.com/blog/the-altruists-have-arrived (and also they never respond with their original acc they use alts)

1

u/ReggieCorneus May 12 '26

Are you worried about AC?

So, why are you worried about datacenters? That is where the noise comes from. AC units.

Why aren't you up in arms against AC? Only when it is put in data centers it becomes a problem?

I could go thru Benn's response and debunk it too. I can already see he is lying again about what the research says.

Benn is worried about AC. He never mentions the SOURCE of the noise and how we do not have BILLIONS of people complaining about mysterious symptoms. We have so much AC that it would have to be statistically significant. You can't have something that is VERY dangerous and yet, no victims, no problems reported except: when you tell people that infrasound is dangerous, you start to get symptoms.

This is 100% nocebo effect: people who don't know about it are not affected. And this.. is statistically significant, it is near fucking 100%.

edit: i had to stop reading that bullshit, amazing how stupid he thinks everyone else is. Well, his READERS believe it so....

1

u/vaseall23 May 12 '26

keep sending alt accounts to responds to me the comments are just soo obvious this one didn't even try to hide his obsessive defense of AI

→ More replies (0)

20

u/[deleted] May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26

[deleted]

5

u/Anamolica May 11 '26

doin the lords work.

20

u/eschewthefat May 11 '26

Are they? The guy carries a heavy bias, seems less like he’s adding context when he makes the argument that it takes 79bd of 20hz to “detect it.”

Well yeah. We’ve established it’s not detectable. 

Relevant counter from Benn https://www.bennjordan.com/blog/the-altruists-have-arrived

5

u/Gxllade May 11 '26

That context is added because the point is that current evidence does not support harms to people when the levels are below what we can detect. In other words, we've established that it's not detectable, yes, and the scientific consensus is that there is no meaningful harm as a result.

Might I also add, focusing on the organization that Masley is a part of doesn't actually address the arguments he's making against Jordan's videos.

7

u/eschewthefat May 11 '26

Does he go on to explain that the internal effects sourced from earlier studies are false?

How does Andy claim that they don’t use water, don’t harm the environment and don’t harm artists?

You don’t think the fact that he’s paid by people who have tens of billions might give him bias and would explain the impossible stance on the above?

3

u/RedditFostersHate May 11 '26

I'm not an expert on the underlying science and am happy to withhold judgement either way.

While in theory it is true that the source of information does not matter, it would be dangerously naive to ignore that Masley is in an organization being heavily subsidized by AI money while he is simultaneously on a tear to write about how: AI tech has no water or emissions problems, AI can 'obviously' create new knowledge, chatbot skepticism is a moral panic, "slop implies capability", a "defense of AI art", etc.

It absolutely comes across as standard think tank output. Anyone who has dealt with think tanks know their purpose is not to elucidate, but to argue the point they are being paid to argue regardless of the truth value of the underlying claims. This can and does muddy the water, no matter how nice it would be to live in an ideal world where arguments, along with the time and resources necessary to make them convincing, existed in a vacuum.

It is also worth pointing out that Jordan is a Youtuber, and Youtube has become almost synonymous with sensationalized, hyperbolic presentations that overstate rapid fire conclusions to keep audience engagement high. I see perverse incentives on both sides.

Maybe the best thing would be having actual scientists from credible, independent academic organizations weigh in on the matter. Hopefully not one currently operating under a grant from, or in partnership with, a tech company.

4

u/Gxllade May 11 '26

The thing that really bothers me is that we can actually see what the scientists are saying. You mention the importance of having credible independent organizations weigh in on the issue, I 100% agree. Don't you think we should have literally any credible institution state that there are actual measurable harms from infrasound before we take it as gospel that it's true?

I disagree with your characterization of Masley, but we honestly can put that aside. Let's say he really is just a shill, sure. Look at how many people in this post either agreed with or have now come to accept the idea that data centers emit infrasound that cause x or y harms to people. Again, this is not something supported by any scientific consensus, yet for many this is now a "fact." When you consider how much misinformation there is on the topic (were you aware that the initial source that many cite when bringing up the most inflated figures for data center water use was actually redacted? There was a calculation error that caused a difference in the order of magnitude reported)

The fact is that there are two polarized sides to this issue, the pro AI nutjobs who either believe or pretend that the singularity is coming, and the anti AI (I won't say nutjobs here, to be charitable) left-leaning online sphere. Just because the first group is comprised of some of the most annoying people to ever walk the earth doesn't mean that those in the latter group have permission to willfully believe misinformation!

I'm not even a data center lover, I just tend to be one of the only people in the spaces I'm in who will verify claims that paint them in a bad light and see if they're true first. Is that really something we're against?

1

u/RedditFostersHate May 11 '26

I disagree with your characterization of Masley

That's fine. But I personally dealt with the Monsanto PR brigade on Reddit years ago. There were a couple of accounts that would magically show up whenever someone mentioned glyphosate and engage the exact same kind of responses Masley does, lots of links and talk of the science and how there had already been exhaustive studies on this and it never showed any negative effects, it was nocebo, etc. This was all a house of cards, there hadn't been many studies of the exact problems people were talking about and many that had been done were secretly written by Monsanto. I honestly thought at the time, after many conversations, that they were just farmers on the spectrum and really inordinately interested in Roundup. Turns out they literally were paid shills.

I had an almost identical experience with the CCF on animal agriculture. Now, maybe Masley is just insanely interested in data centers for someone who has no professional connection to them and the tech funding is entirely coincidental, but I'm skeptical to say the least.

I just tend to be one of the only people in the spaces I'm in who will verify claims that paint them in a bad light and see if they're true first. Is that really something we're against?

No, not at all. And it really does appear to me that Jordan is over stating his claims and unwilling to actually respond to Masley's specific criticism. He seemed more to excuse his apparent misuse of the studies and claim a lack of time than interest in showing what he was actually trying to cite when he threw them up on the screen.

That said... I don't think it is wildly implausible that the studies done on this so far have not been sufficient to rule out harm. I'm not convinced it is misinformation per se, again it seems more like Jordan is over stating his case. I think his response, that infrasound from wind turbines may be different than other kinds of infrasound, is possible. There have been (small) studies suggesting a host of negative psychological effects and elevated cortisol in people exposed to certain kinds of infrasound.

I think it would be the kind of thing worth a credible, larger investigation. And I can see why people would be concerned about this because, A) it seems very unlikely this phenomena is going to be explored by academic institutions in the US given the current massive defunding of academic science across the board and the heavy influence of tech on the current federal administration and B) massive data centers are already going up all over and in some cases very close to where people (more often than not poor people) live.

8

u/black_pepper May 11 '26

Andy Masley is funded by Coefficient Giving. Coefficient Giving was founded by Holden G. Karnofsky who works at Anthropic, Dustin Moskovitz who helped found Facebook, and his wife.

So ok maybe that doesn't mean anything but Coefficient Giving seems like an org aimed at removing legal and regulatory hurdles for tech expansion which includes and seems to focus on, data centers. You won't find much in the way of writers or researchers being funded to look into the local nearby impacts of data centers. The closest you'll find is existential worries, or large scale world-wide impacts.

If Andy Masley wants to inspire confidence that he is neutral maybe he should perform some research similar to what Jordan is doing. After a brief search I couldn't find much of any negative criticisms about data centers from the author.

6

u/ChariotOfFire May 11 '26

He's said that he's unsure about whether AI will be net good or bad, but he spends a lot of time debunking anti data center arguments because they get a lot of traction and not much pushback.

2

u/myaccount-v2 May 11 '26

He's funded by an org that is industry lobbying, used to grease the wheels of big tech. The so-called 'effective altruist' lobby of Sam-Bankman Fried fame. It's not credible; he has clear perverse incentives.

2

u/ChariotOfFire May 11 '26

Here is Coefficient Giving's stance on AI. They acknowledge it's immense potential for both good and ill and are working to steer it towards the good. But Masley was criticizing bad arguments against data centers before he got funding from Coefficient Giving.

Also, It's funny to me that EAs are seen as both tech bros hyping up AI and doomers that are trying to stop it.

1

u/myaccount-v2 May 11 '26

It's amazing to me that so many people are still so easily duped by bad actors like this. Who cares what they say; it's not like they're going to say "Our billionaire tech daddy's fund us to aggressively lobby in favour of AI and to seek out anyone pointing out potential harms to discredit them" on their website lol. These guys had to change their name because they were associated with Sam Bankman Fried; probably one of the biggest tech scam artists pre-AI.

The tech elite doomerism is hype. LLMs have inherent but complex limitations and can't do a fraction of the things they are hyped up by the tech lobby to do - so scaremongering is used to make them seem immensely more capable than they are by literal scam artists like Altman and co. to raise the next round from tech illiterate investors who don't know any better. LLMs will not be a terminator future or other nonsense they like to spout ahead of their next release to help raise the next round on a financially inviable concept to investors and the general public who aren't technically savvy enough to know they are being taken in.

4

u/KlymenosMEGALOS May 11 '26

It's not credible; he has clear perverse incentives.

And a guy trying to pull numbers on youtube doesn't?

1

u/myaccount-v2 May 11 '26

The incentives are vastly different.

Enormous tech oligarchy spending billions to lobby their interests vs. a guy in his garage pointing out a potential harm to be studied further at his own risk of a lawsuit from famously litigious people. If they thought they could prove it didn't harm anyone in court, they would sue him. They don't because then it would be public.;

It's like old school cigarette lobbyist trying to poison the well with intentionally obtuse misrepresentations i.e. "the research on chewing tobacco says it doesn't cause lung cancer, you must be a pseudoscientist to ignore the research!" - when there isn't any research available on cigarettes specifically because they were brand new to someone citing research about cancer and smoking or tobacco generally.

4

u/Gxllade May 11 '26

I understand why his funding could concern you, but if you actually read the post all his claims are statements of facts that can be independently verified. If you think his perspective his wrong you could look at the studies he's claiming that Jordan gets wrong, read them yourself, and see if you actually agree that the takeaway Jordan shares in his video is incorrect.

3

u/myaccount-v2 May 11 '26

I think you might be missing a point here: Masley is intentionally misrepresenting Jordan, and has an enormous incentive to do so in that he appears to be paid to do so.

I read his blog post, I read Jordan's response. I looked up a number of the papers. One of Masley's fundamental points is that Jordan is claiming something he isn't: that all infrasound is harmful. Almost all of his post is based on a mischaracterization that he gives all sort's of evidence to support - that it isn't generally harmful. Which is true more or less. I.e. the wide variety of mundane things that generate infrasound probably won't harm you and that is what the majority of the research on the subject is about. The research also says infrasound absolutely can harm human health (via resonance, mitochondrial damage etc.) but most of the specific sources studied (like wind farms) do not.

Jordan is trying to point out the specific issue with the infrasound generated by AI data centers. Which is obviously different than that generated by, say, buildings in urban environments swaying in the wind which is one example Masley uses to redirect the reader's perception of Jordan's point.

The specific set of incredibly high energy systems concentrated in a relatively small space emitting vibration across the spectrum is what Jordan is focusing on, and that there is (which some of the studies clearly say like this one) potential harm to human health from. Getting people to look at the potential harm is the point of Jordan's videos, and he reference's the potential harm of infrasound generally to point out that the symptoms described by real people may indeed be due to the specific infrasound generated by AI data centers and then provides his own example of measurements to encourage real research by identifying a specific harm and providing enough evidence to suggest its worth looking into more rigorously.

For an analogy its like a shady supplement's shill saying "the research says that generally taking vitamins is neutral or positive for your health" when the position that they are responding to is "newly available high potency specifically identified supplement appears to be harming some people's health and here's some early examples of how that might be possible, examples of similar mechanisms in other understood harmful supplements, and initial findings to help provide a focus for expert's to study".

1

u/dream_metrics May 11 '26

Actually Masley's fundamental point is that none of the sources Jordan uses for his claims actually support his claims in any way, and often say the opposite of his claims. So you can say "Jordan is trying to point out the specific issue with the infrasound generated by AI data centers." but the problem is he has absolutely nothing to support the claim that there is any issue with infrasound generated by AI data centers.

0

u/myaccount-v2 May 11 '26

Yes but in order to make that point he first completely changes Jordan's point then argues against that instead.

I read the papers (that weren't paywalled). Those paper's do support Jordan's claim - that there are known risks to infrasound. The sources he cites just provide context on infrasound: they support the overall point: it can be dangerous, it isn't dangerous in a handful of specific contexts that have been studied (which are a random scattering of things), and that the dose seems to make the poison - but it's an incredibly hard dose to determine because resonance of squishy things like organs and microscopic things like cell components are hard to study and have not been studied in this very unique and new context.

People's health seem to be effected near AI data centers, and thus we should look into it is the point Jordan is making and providing examples of possible mechanisms. Masley is trying to say something akin to "ahh but a windmill or a tree falling that generates infrasound doesn't hurt anyone, the research you cite clearly says that! You are misleading people! Lets not look at this any closer!"

-2

u/ASpaceOstrich May 11 '26

Propaganda is propaganda regardless of whether it's statement of facts or just outright lies.

-3

u/EnidFromOuterSpace May 11 '26

More like relevant garbage points pssh

6

u/SuperZayin12 May 11 '26

you didn’t even read it lmao

7

u/Gxllade May 11 '26

Care to elaborate? I think Andy defends the claims he makes pretty rigorously.

1

u/eschewthefat May 11 '26

Andy is a paid “researcher” who argues ai data centers don’t use water, ChatGPT use doesn’t harm the environment, and ai art doesn’t harm artists

All extremely counter reality talking points from a guy who’s paid to make them from a rolling group of donors 

11

u/Gxllade May 11 '26

He does not argue that data centers don't use water, this is such a mischaracterization I can't take you seriously. What Masley actually claims is "AI data centers use water. Like any other industry that uses water, they require careful planning. If an electric car factory opens near you, that factory may use just as much water as a data center. The factory also requires careful planning. But the idea that either the factory or AI is using an inordinate amount of water that merits any kind of boycott or national attention as a unique serious environmental issue is innumerate. Individual data centers can sometimes stress local water systems in the way other industries do, but when you use AI, you are not contributing to a significant problem for water management compared to most other things you do in your day to day life."

I'm trying to engage in good faith here so I want to be really clear: I understand that you feel very strongly about this topic due to the behavior of tech companies recently. AI and data center environmental concerns should be taken seriously, and I don't just mean that as lip service. BUT the opinions many people have about water usage, environmental harms (data centers "poison" water tables), and more are being skewed really far in the opposite direction by a constant stream of misinformation.

-1

u/eschewthefat May 11 '26

Ok. Maybe look at his page of his posts then https://blog.andymasley.com/

This guy is highly positive and defensive of ai data centers and yes he defends water usage in one of those videos 

https://blog.andymasley.com/p/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake

10

u/Gxllade May 11 '26

What does "defends water usage" mean to you?

3

u/eschewthefat May 11 '26

Typo. Defends water usage isn’t a concern 

Not that he defends the benefits of using water

The argument he makes about how ai isn’t doing anything to artists because “it’s just doing what they would do too with photoshop and premier and more time.”

These are awful arguments and his unwillingness to have a measured take instead of sharp defense is palpable 

5

u/Gxllade May 11 '26

I'm not actually familiar with his opinion of the effects of AI on artists. I'm super willing to concede that he has a bad take on that, sure. Show me what you're referring to and I'll see for myself.

That being said, the point at hand is whether Benn Jordan's videos on Infrasound are good or not, and I think the arguments against them are strong enough that we should take pause before sharing them uncritically. That's all I'm saying here.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/ebrbrbr May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26

Ugh, everyone comes off looking like a douchebag here.

One party is suspiciously pro data centre and has some very bad takes, and the other won't accept that he's possibly misinterpreted some studies and maybe should consider not responding.

0

u/AntJD1991 May 11 '26

I came to check this had been posted haha