Three Thoughts: It’s OK. One Can Like AI, Dislike Data Centers

 

My great great grandfather was a typesetter. 
What's that?  Ask AI.

You don’t have to like data centers to like AI.  

I can reconcile the fact that I carry a phone loaded with AI-equipped capabilities and am a user of ChatGPT, X, and Facebook, yet I am no fan of the proliferation of data centers. 

It’s a false choice. 

I contend I can like AI and be hopeful for its future even if I wish data centers created more jobs. 

First Thought: Rooting for AI

I can put thumbs up on my kids’ sporting events and hearts to my granddaughter’s photos even if I would rather see industrial sites kept ready for manufacturers instead of data centers. 

I won’t shed tears if my mom’s social media likes from 2013 are lost in a power outage instead of her air conditioning going out and the food in her fridge spoiling in a rolling blackout. 

Google, NVIDIA, and Microsoft are all speaking to more efficient data centers in the future.  Data centers could use a smaller footprint for the same output.  Intel’s Gordon Moore and Moore’s Law concept is another predictor to watch. Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA said, “The first thing we’re doing is modernizing data centers, accelerating it, densifying it, making it more energy efficient.” 

Yes, AI is growing computing demand, but more efficient data storage means computing supply is growing rapidly too.  Both are happening. 

Another Thought: Don’t blame AI

AI shouldn’t be held up as a shield against data center backlash.  

Don’t tell me I have to like data centers’ location choices simply because I’m upbeat about the future of AI. 

It’s a local decision to accept data centers.  A local community can embrace AI and still, rightly, question the best use of land and resources to best achieve local impact. 

Even with the massive growth, data centers directly account for about 0.5% of Ohio’s Gross Domestic Product compared to 15% for manufacturing.  Ohio needs to accommodate data centers without allowing them to crowd out the manufacturing sector that has long been one of the state’s greatest strengths. 

Third Thought: AI and jobs

Don’t fear AI taking away jobs.  That’s another false choice. 

Fear of losing jobs to technology and mechanization is not a new idea.  

I do family history research, and it shows typesetter, copy editor, drayman, and harness maker in the mix among my ancestors’ jobs.  You must search hard to even know what those jobs involve.  

Jobs evolve.  New jobs emerge. 

Businesses are benefiting from AI embedded in everyday work. It’s a much-needed edge.  Just like knowing how to use spreadsheet software in 1990 or 3D printing in 2010, jobs of the future will require knowledge of how to use AI. 

Economist Lauren Saidel-Baker said it right way back in 2018, "The number of new jobs created by artificial intelligence may actually exceed the number of jobs eliminated." 

Count me among the growing number of people who are pro-AI and rooting for its future benefits for Ohio business and workforce.  Supporting AI, though, doesn’t mean supporting every data center, in every location, with every incentive.

--------------------------------------------------

This column is a regular column in The Columbus Dispatch. 

Three Thoughts: Innovation Knows No Population Density

“Rick’s been rescued from cornfields and cow pastures” is how an email exchange presented the idea that hard-to-find cleanroom space was available for lease from our Port Authority in central Licking County. 

The author meant well.  The email recipient wouldn’t have believed it, perhaps, without the rural reference.  The author, frankly, didn’t believe it either. 

Thirty five miles from Ohio’s largest city sits the largest concentration of cleanroom space in the state.  It may defy some folk’s conventional wisdom, but it’s been true for going on 65 years. 

That email recipient converted use of the cleanroom space into a technology startup. 

Today, in that same cleanroom space, a life sciences company is aiming to commercialize taking brain tissue generated from an individual’s skin cells into a predictor of future ailments.  Even more, the predictions can be coupled with early cures. It’s personalized, predictive medicine. 

Yes, that’s happening in a lab in Heath, population 10,000.

Innovation knows no population density. 

First Thought: Urban vs. Rural Isn’t New.

This urban versus rural thing is not a new notion.  David McCullough’s book The Wright Brothers evidences the idea that innovation and technological capabilities can come from unlikely places.  New York media ignored Orville and Wilbur’s achievements out of disbelief that bicycle mechanics from a small town in Ohio could achieve the world’s first powered flight. 

Yet, the $1 trillion annual aerospace and aviation industry in the U.S. was born in Dayton, Ohio. 

The brain tissue researcher in our Port Authority’s cleanroom in Heath often tells the Wright brothers’ story when he speaks to fellow innovators in Boston or Dubai.  After all, he does have to explain the surprising place from where his research originates. 

Another Thought: Don’t Discount Rural Areas.

It’s an easy trap to discount the potential for innovation based on how few people live in a place. 

I’ve been to Bi-Con in Derwent, Ohio and contend the highest concentration of innovation per capita is there.  At night, Derwent is home to a population of less than 100.  During the day, Derwent swells in working population thanks to the company which makes control panels and automation for the natural gas industry. Major, life-safety problem solving is owed to this place. 

The Derwent tale is a lesson for suburban dwellers too.  

Third Thought: Celebrate Innovation Wherever It Began.

Ohio is so frequently discounted as “fly over country” or “Rust Belt.”  Those pejoratives are owed to the population density myth too.  Yet, Ohio has many reasons to celebrate innovation. 

Fiberglass, invented in Newark, Ohio, is in everything today from car bodies to data lines.  Kent, Ohio is the origin of liquid crystal displays, the guts to screens for our phones and computers. 

The U.S. Capitol holds a statue of Thomas Edison.  He’s the face of innovation and Ohio, rightly, celebrates his many achievements.  He was born in Milan, Ohio. 

It’s a fallacy to conceive that one location can possess superiority, economically, based solely on population density.  The best measure of innovation comes from what a place produces, not how many people it packs in.

--------------------------------------------------------------

This column is a regular column in The Columbus Dispatch.

Innovation and the New American Heartland

NewGeography.com has a report out today titled "The American Heartland's Position In the Innovation Economy." It's a deep dive look at innovation potential of the states in the New American Heartland.

It's not all good for Ohio and the middle of the country.

Ohio ranking 26th among states in the technology and science index doesn't cause one to shout from the mountain tops.  The rankings are normalized for population, so middle of the road isn't terrible, it's just not exciting.

There's hope though.  The trends are upward.

When it came to preparing STEM skills and STEM workforce, Ohio stood out.  The report says, "Ohio climbed 12 places from 2014 to 18th overall in technology and science workforce.  Ohio was fourth in material scientists. . .sixth in industrial engineers, seventh in aerospace engineers. . .displaying prowess in key engineering occupations."

The Port Authority's Aerospace Center and the I-70/State Route 79 corridor we sit in reflects that prowess.  Our investments in STEM are worth it.

The report also favorably cites Ohio's pace in growing technology industries, though it didn't cite what those industries exactly where.

The report advocates for STEM skills, not just four-year degrees but associates degrees and career technical education.  My column has been a long advocate for that too and the principal that innovation knows no population density.

It puts relocation tax credits out as a policy move to consider.  I agree.

It's worth a read.

Embrace AI: Adapt to Change and One Will Survive

There's a must-read over at the Beaulieu brothers' ITR Economics website.  Economist Lauren Saidel-Baker writes in a piece titled "Artificial Intelligence and Automation:  Three Reasons Not to Fear the Robots."

I've written on the topic too--"Fear of Machination is Old Fashioned Thinking."

Saidel-Baker hits home the point that there will be change, but that adapting to change is nothing new.  She makes the case for "embracing" artificial intelligence in manufacturing.

The bottom line is right here:  "The number of new jobs created by artificial intelligence may actually exceed the number of jobs eliminated."

Read the whole piece at ITREconomics.com.