Generally most technologies have increased the use of energy and therefore accelerate climate change. May be an unpopular opinion but in general more energy demand and ways to use energy increases climate emissions - they are strongly correlated even with renewables coming on stream.
AI, being the super hungry energy monster it is right now, in my view accelerates this trend not reverses it. Even with renewables the need for reliable, stable power in a dense form (data centres use A LOT of power per sqm) means lots of land clearing, energy for construction, cooling/pumping, chip manufacturing and other uses. All want stable quick to deploy power due to the AI race (e.g. fossil fuels).
AI's energy use is growing, but it's still a small part of overall energy use.
Data centres use only a small amount of land in the grand scheme of things. You have a lot more land clearing for most other use cases.
Data centres are also more than happy to use electricity from renewable sources, they don't really care where the electricity comes from.
You can run a data centre on mostly solar and wind power plus batteries. If you need a gas-fired peaker plant three times a year to keep the data centres running, well that means your peaker plant still only produces emissions three times a year.
They use a small amount of land per MW used. The fact that space isn't a constraining factor in power demand, and demand for AI compute seems to be insatiable at the moment, means that there is less of a "land constraint" to use even more energy. If they actually required a lot of land they would be less viable and AI progress would be slower IMO. Just means even more data centre's will be built - this is where the Jevon's paradox actually is IMO. Seeing it in real life already with these things taking a significant portion of power demand and projected to take even more.
As you use more and more land as well the ability to provision renewables decreases - in general renewable power needs more land/resources per energy produced. You can't just mine it out of the ground; they just aren't as dense of a form of energy. Which means we either build less data centres to make room for renewables and transmission infrastructure associated with them, or more likely with lax regulation builders switch to more dense power sources (e.g. gas peakers, generators, etc) even if it is for supplementation.
I can see a future where data center wants are put ahead of communities paying tax on said infrastructure. In fact I think its happening in some places already.
But not dense w.r.t energy generated. Where will you put it? Panels on a data centre aren't nearly enough to power that data centre. And data centres are not tolerant of variable power. Even with batteries that just means you need even more power for times when renewable output is low.
Cheap power is one thing. Quality reliable power at mass scale is quite another. These things chew through a LOT of power and most people don't understand the sheer scale of it. I've seen a local one (a medium AI data centre) take up 2% of the whole cities grid and there's plenty more to come around here including a 1GW one (10% of the whole city's power in only 0.005% approx of the city's whole space) which cleared wildlife reserved land to build. Even a few of these things compete massively for trades people, commodities, power and other infrastructure pricing locals out. They are talking about using evaporative cooling as well putting pressure on water supply.
We are not running out of land (or sea area) for putting solar anytime soon.
Electricity transports really well.
Data centres don't need reliable power. Of course, all else being equal, they would like their power to be reliable, but if your choices are between delaying your data centres by a few months (or not building it at all) or running a risk of having a few hours or even days here or there without power, the first choice wins: pretty much the only downside is the few hours of usage you lose when there's no power. It's not like powering down causes damage, like when your aluminum smelter cools down too much.
> Even a few of these things compete massively for trades people, commodities, power and other infrastructure pricing locals out.
Power is pretty much an industrial produced service, a bit like shoes or cars. In the medium to long run, that stuff has pretty much a horizontal supply curve.
In any case, price electricity right, and let people decide how much they want to use. (Give poor people money, if necessary.)
> They are talking about using evaporative cooling as well putting pressure on water supply.
Yet another reason to put a proper market price on water. Agriculture and industry usually goes through even more water.
Feel free to give residents money to buy water at market prices. But residential use of water is so low in comparison that even if the price goes 10x, it doesn't make a dent in people's budgets. Especially not the minuscule amounts you need for drinking and cooking, and even personal hygiene like flushing your toilet doesn't use all that much.
I can only speak of data centres in my local area. One development will use 1GW+ (at least 10%+ of the whole cities power supply in one building) and it isn't the first nor last to be promoted. We are struggling, even with incentives, to build the power required to keep even the city running with power yet alone these data centres. Electricity costs have risen quite substantially locally over the last few years (40-50%) so the commodity model you mention doesn't work - it is harder to ship electricity than say as per your example shoes especially at this scale.
Data centres also prefer being near major cities due to latency. This means to deliver the amount of power required there needs to be huge upgrades to infrastructure (long distance power lines) just to provide for data centres. Who does that? At the moment for many cities it is the taxpayer who will fork higher electricity bills for infra upgrades for a data centre few of them care or need.
On the water issue - who will give money to residents? The taxpayer? Just to subsidize data centres/AI construction? Water is also unlike electricity more scarce especially potable water. Do we build more dams? Desalination? Main line piping? Taxpayer funds that again?
To the average joe blow: I'm paying more taxes, for data centres I don't want, to pay more for electricity and have water shortages, for something that will take my job or someone's job I know. Not a great trade.
There's a lot of negative externalities to data centres due to their sheer scale to the point where they compete with households and other industries. My view is that the data centres should pay and compensate the community for those should they use grid or community based infra. The income could actually long term could help the community get a dividend from data centre construction as well.
I don't think you are wrong. I find many tech people/founders excited by AI don't understand end game economics in general. Like kids excited by the new toy starting their new startup they don't see the end game if this all plays out; or they are hopeful that they are the lucky ones.
Generally industries once they become a cheap commodity are at best cost based pricing. If you aren't charging to cost I will go to where it is; especially in a saturated market.
Ironically large corp, instead of tech companies, is probably where the SWE jobs of the future are at. Cost based pricing in cost based centre's. Creating own software with domain knowledge; rather than generic SaaS. Shared platforms will probably still have some value; but the value there isn't from the effort in code - more things like network effects, physical control, regulation, etc. Not an industry to get into anymore IMO -> AI is destroying SWE.
Software was always a means to an end; albeit an expensive way to get there that often paid off anyway at scale. The means is getting cheaper; the end remains.
Generally from a financial planning standpoint 35-50 is typically the "grinding years" where mortgage, family, and other life commitments means that typically your career investment needs to pay off to make it through. In some ways it is the "danger zone" financially. Hard to change careers (not young enough), but not yet worked enough to retire with large expenses coming in. This isn't unique to software engineers either -> this is most people in most jobs.
There are also mixed people on these forums in different regions, countries, work experiences, etc. For example software in most places in the world had an above average salary but not extremely high (i.e. many other white collar professions would pay similar/more). For those people where it is a standard skilled role it probably hits even harder now than say the ones with lots of stock who can retire early and enjoy the new toy that is AI.
Software, and most STEM based jobs, have a lot of determinism and verifiability + some way to reduce the cost of failure so brute force iteration can cover up the remaining. There is often "a correct answer". They've also yet to be truly disrupted until now which makes them particularly vulnerable than any other job.
Most jobs don't have the same level of verification and/or repeatability. Some factors include:
* Physical constraints: Even the jobs that have productive output if they are physical it will take a long time for AI and more importantly energy density to catch up. Robots have a while to go as well - in the end human hands and your metabolism/energy density will be worth more than your brain/intelligence.
* Cost of failure/can't repeat: For things like building the cost of failure is high (e.g. disposal, cleanup, more resources, etc) -> even 70% of a "building bench" benchmark would be completely inadequate without low cost to repeat. Many jobs are also already largely automated but scaled (e.g. mining, manufacturing, etc) - they've already gone through the wave.
* Human need for its own sake: Other jobs cater not just for productive output, but for some human need where it hasn't been made more efficient ever (e.g. care jobs). There are jobs that a human is more effective in the medium term because the receiver needs it from a human.
No -> this just affects white collar STEM based roles. Thinking we are in it together is just another form of "cope" sadly. There's a rational reason why others have optimism while we SWE's are now full of anxiety and dread.
For the people who it doesn't affect given their current place in many societies (nurses, builders, etc etc) there will be little sympathy.
What's more interesting is how the big names in our industry, the ones who already made their money as you say, have turned quickly since the end of 2025. I think even the most old school names can see that the writing is on the wall now.
Changed their opinion/public stance completely sometimes only months apart. For example "I love programming" to "if you aren't with AI you are behind" within maybe only 6 months time. Its almost like anyone with any public opinion in software is being paid to say it now and boost the AI hype.
A lot of startups/small businesses are like "with AI we can build more than ever". The problem is so can everyone else and capitalism rewards scarcity not value. The bar for startups and small software business has risen quite substantially. I know we are avoiding buying software now where I work if possible unless we previously committed to it (contracts).
The language is still ahead of C#, and still receiving features and keeping up by and large with the .NET ecosystem. Tbh I don't get the sheer negativity; the same thing could be said for Gleam or any other functional language these days tbh especially with AI coming along w.r.t long term support. Eventually things just work and are mostly complete; things don't have to get reinvented or get better forever.
> As much as I had high hopes for F# I think its safe at this point, to not pursuit it any further
I find this attitude interesting; you wanted it to be more than it was. I don't have high hopes for any language; other than it building my software which it and many others can do. Right tool for right job. I'm not attached to my code, other than if it can be maintained, changed, has sane defaults/guardrails to introduce less defects, etc. F# can do this, as many others. Interestingly I've seen the same attitude eventually happen to all languages of this class other than Rust; Scala, OCaml, etc are in similar positions.
Funnily enough Opus/CC has a number of times for my projects has suggested Rust, and if that doesn't work (too much for the team) went F# even over Java based langs assuming domain modelling code and the need for more perf (e.g. value types, and other stuff) without explicit prompting. Its then generated fsx scripts to run experiments, etc that seem to be more reliable than the default Python ones it runs (package errors and static typing fixes mostly). `dotnet fsi` fits well into the agentic workflow.
> Rescript and that being said, Rescript is probably more of a competitor to gleam
Depends on your target. F# at least has a backdoor into the C# ecosystem - from a risk perspective that makes it more palatable. New languages have an initial "excitement" about them; but generally they are just tools.
Pick something that fits your team and build. F# does work, and so do many other tools. In the age of AI IMO the ecosystem and guardrails for the AI matter more than the language and its syntax IMO other than readability. In this regard F# still is "less risky" with its .NET interop.
Wake up and smell the coffee: fsharp is dead. Look at the release notes of fsharp. It's laughable for a major version update. It's maintained by like 5 people working in eastern Europe and they only do maintenance updates basically. C# is getting all its features and DotNet is basically c# oriented anyway. So even in the past you had to learn C# to program in F#
Yes but not for the reason you think - more that those are the future customers. If you look closely most are pivoting slowly away from software and shifting more to AI + hardware. The slow layoffs and pivoting that capital to infra shows this. All that "vibed" software needs to run somewhere. Also the models that generate and also power all that software need compute which comes from somewhere.
If I can:
- Have large margin compute since GPU's, power, data centre, etc setup is expensive AND
- Models that outperform models you can have at home.
- Vibed software that derives a lot of functionality from the AI compute and wants to be hosted on compute.
The big companies are pivoting away from software to being more infrastructure like for the democratized software that is projected to be made. They will be fine but in 10 years they will be more cloud hyperscalers, AI compute agents, etc than software businesses. Any software they write will be more to package up their compute as higher margin products.
There's a lot of this forum in exactly that position. The fear is real; there is a real risk this AI destroys families and people's lives in the disruption.
This is what will occur - the bad scenario that is. Labor and its knowledge distributes (hard to contain knowledge), capital centralises and compounds. Always been that way. With AI there will be a a tension between the two of course.
The root question is: Will AI decentralise quicker than the disruption to this profession? I don't think so.
I've noticed us techies don't really understand economics and game theory all that well - we just see awesome toy and want to play with it and want others to enjoy it too. We have worked to democratize computing for years (e.g. OSS) now to our detriment. No one in society long term respects people who do this in a capitalist system; they find them naive. I can now understand why other professions find us a little immature like kids playing with tech toys.
I love solving problems with technology and love the field, but as I've gotten older I look back on a less technological life with nostalgia. Technology for all its benefit has disrupted the one thing humans do need and had for millions of years in our evolution - relative stability within their lifetimes. The mental health benefits to stability are massive and usually unmeasured. Technology, as evidenced by this thread, creates more and more anxiety about our future and our place within the community (e.g. social media, AI, and others). "Adaptability" isn't just a psychological trait; a wealthy person and secure person by definition is more adaptable too.
AI, being the super hungry energy monster it is right now, in my view accelerates this trend not reverses it. Even with renewables the need for reliable, stable power in a dense form (data centres use A LOT of power per sqm) means lots of land clearing, energy for construction, cooling/pumping, chip manufacturing and other uses. All want stable quick to deploy power due to the AI race (e.g. fossil fuels).
reply