Fayyad’s claim that data centers are a distraction is the frame for his own argument that Congress needs to regulate artificial intelligence. While this is certainly true, he himself acknowledges that “there’s little to no appetite in Washington to meaningfully regulate the industry.” This is where improv performers — and organizers — know that “and,” not “but,” is the solution.

Get The Gavel

A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.

Smaller winnable campaigns are a critical first step in organizing people — and politicians — to take on larger issues. They are also essential to chipping away at resistant authorities, such as today’s Congress, and laying the ground for working with future and potentially more responsive authorities. Finally, the power of “and” opens up possibilities for action, where “but” shuts them down.

Organizers and improv actors alike also recognize the importance of narrative framing. By leaning into “and” instead of “but,” Fayyad could have framed his narrative less dismissively and more generatively, which is what we all need to be doing at this moment.

Rebecca Steinitz

Arlington

Mass. could be a leader in supporting responsible data center development

I agree with Mindy Lubber’s view that we can balance data center growth with positive benefits for Massachusetts (“How Mass. can balance data center growth and climate goals,” Opinion, May 2). The economic benefits of doing so would far outweigh the costs of regulatory compliance.

Massachusetts has repeatedly built its economic base on innovation and technology. Consider the Route 128 technology belt, the biotech boom, and our being home to many of the country’s best colleges and universities. Currently, artificial intelligence is the driver of high tech, and AI requires huge quantities of data. In order to remain economically viable, supporting responsible data center development is crucial.

The challenge will be to balance the requirements to be imposed in exchange for permits, as Lubber argued. That means creating clear standards regarding energy usage, grid improvements, and community impact.

Then there is water. Reducing water usage is paramount, given the trend of climate change-induced drought. There are technologies that can be employed to reduce water usage in data centers. For example, ZutaCore has developed a product that eliminates water from the computer cooling process.

If the Legislature enacts appropriate regulations, Massachusetts could capitalize on a key economic driver of the future.

Jonathan Quint

Milford

This costly technology is being shoved down our throats

Both the environmental and economic costs of data centers, which power AI, are passed on to us, the consumers, regardless of whether we use these services. That means that yet again we are underwriting billionaires’ paychecks and further polluting our world without our consent.

Mindy Lubber’s op-ed about balancing data center growth and climate goals was laughable. “With the right approach,” she writes, “data centers can enable more wind, solar, and battery deployment.” Her vision of having data centers fund clean energy initiatives is bizarre. It’s like asking Monsanto, whose product Roundup has been associated with lymphoma, to donate to cancer treatment.

Lubber’s ideas need expanding. For instance, let us pass legislation that these centers must create their own energy through renewables that they develop, must use only gray water, and must be planned for areas where there is complete buy-in from the community.

Also, the fact that AI is generated for all internet searches, whether we ask for it or not, is bowing again to the tech billionaires who continue to develop it. We should be able to opt in if we want the service and pay for it.

AI is not a basic human need like clean air and water. Let’s stop treating it that way.

Judith Black

Marblehead