Ah geesh. You have been a condescending ass the entire conversation. And your argument seems to be we can't regulate and if we do we can't enforce it. Which is defeatist nonsense and ignores where we already do it successfully. I have better things to do on a Saturday. Guess we should just give up.

Dude you don't seem to understand how business works and which powers governments have. I can't just rent a datacenter abroad because I need to prove it follows my local privacy laws. If I don't my company is at risk. Google GDPR and how that works. It isn't perfect but is enforced and cross border.

The same way we enforce food standards and other trade and safety regulations. You tell companies which rules they have to follow and then you enforce those rules. You don't directly regulate the datacenter. You regulate the company using the datacenter. This already happens for example with privacy

Yes, that way. Outsourcing doesn't mean local rules go away. Just look at differences in food safety regulations or even data privacy laws. Just because countries can decide to have lower labour laws doesn't mean there aren't a lot of standards that are enforced across borders.

The same way we regulate everything else. You demand companies to follow certain rules in return for doing business in your country. This already happens with nearly everything you buy and every service you use.

What is the point of datacenters being abroad then? I don't understand that as a point against regulations.

What does that have anything to do with anything? The discussion and the lack of action is bigger than the US. But even if we pretend this discussion was only about the US. Yes, the US can demand that businesses use datacenters with regulations.

What is impossible? Regulations? Datacenters require permits. AI needs datacenters. It isn't hard to grant those only when certain requirements are met.

The majority of people do not care enough to demand action, change behaviour or vote for regulations it is not a fallacy to refer to the majority as we.

Stopped as in properly regulated to not make a bad problem worse.

That might be an interesting philosophical distinction but not sure it adds to the discussion. The reality is that we could have stopped or demanded green AI because we are in a situation that requires less fossil fuel usage not more. Yet the focus of voters, politicians and businesses is elsewhere.

I thought it was pretty clear the "we" in my comment stood for society and not individuals. It should also be pretty clear it didn't stand for me.

It is proof we just don't care about the environment and climate change. This was new technology, the easiest to tie down with real demands. Businesses and people weren't dependent on it yet, no downgrade in quality of life. And we couldn't even do that.

Probably because the logistics route goes through the US and they need more time to unravel it.