Accusing people of being a luddite because they disagree with you. Typical. You didn’t even read the article. The meme you referenced was not about the evil AI can be used for, it was to illustrate all the industries tied to AI and its development and industries that would be effected by an AI financial misstep. It was not about stopping AI, it was about the precarious financing behind it, the off balance sheet financing similar to what ENRON did and what can happen financially if things don’t go as planned or as OpenAI has done and postponed its IPO. Your arrogance and condescension doesn’t do any good.
But you or I should say your use of AI makes you think you know it all and upsets you when people chose a different path, I forgot./s
AI data centers are assets that will remain after Trump. One does not know what a future administration will use them for. Smart meters, smartphones, smart appliances, smart TVs, home security systems, computers on wheels aka modern cars that government wants to have a kill switch on (they don’t have them yet) are all data processing items that will be able to be controlled by AI data centers at the behest of government not the citizen. LG TVs have been discovered to track home owners communications inside their house.
Also building these AI data centers ignores the one thing that has made America great, innovation. There already are innovators in the AI field that could make AI data centers stranded assets in the future.
I’ll take freedom over safety any day. I’ll take being called a luddite over following the sheep and the latest tech fad.
The so called luddite here per our AI ‘expert’ Foldspace.
Let’s analyze your list: did the invention of cars, radio, TV, calculators, personal computers, microwaves, internet or smartphones infringe on any constitutional rights?
No
Now let’s look at AI:
Does AI infringe or potentially infringe on any constitutional rights?
YES
1st Amendment (Free Speech): AI can be used by government to surveil and police protected speech and although not human AI-generated content has the same first amendment protection unless it is defamatory et al.
4th Amendment (Privacy and Unreasonable Searches):
The 4th amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
AI powered tools/software such as facial recognition, biometric data collection and predictive policing can be used for extensive monitoring and data aggregation this violates privacy expectations and creates unreasonable searches. AI powered smart meters, smart appliances, ex. LG TV, can violate the 4th amendment also.
Comprehensive technology-aided (AI) surveillance programs violated the Fourth Amendment.
In Chatrie v. United States (decided June 29, 2026), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that law enforcement’s use of geofence warrants to access Google Location History data constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan held that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their location history data, meaning police must obtain a valid search warrant to conduct such geofencing.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf
AI joins a long line of technological advancements like electronic eavesdropping, GPS tracking, thermal imaging, and wiretapping that, when adopted by law enforcement, have sometimes resulted in legal tension with constitutional privacy protections.
States are enacting AI legislation. Example:
Effective January 1, 2026, the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (“TRAIGA”) governs entities deploying artificial intelligence (“AI”) in Texas. TRAIGA establishes requirements for those deploying AI systems and prohibitions on certain types of AI uses.
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/pdf/HB00149F.pdf#navpanes=0
Prohibitions Under TRAIGA Include:
Manipulation of Human Behavior
A person may not develop or deploy an AI system in a manner that intentionally aims to incite or encourage a person to commit physical self-harm (including suicide), harm another person, or engage in criminal activity.
Social Scoring
A governmental entity may not use or deploy an AI system that evaluates or classifies a person or group based on social behavior or personal characteristics with the intent to assign a social score or similar valuation that could result in detrimental, unfavorable, or disproportionate treatment or infringe on any right guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, the Texas Constitution, or state or federal law.
Capture of Biometric Data
A governmental entity may not develop or deploy an AI system for the purpose of uniquely identifying a specific individual using biometric data or the targeted or untargeted gathering of images or other media without the individual’s consent, if gathering would infringe on any right of the individual under the U.S. Constitution, the Texas Constitution, or state or federal law.
Constitutional Violations
A person may not develop or deploy an AI system with the sole intent for the AI system to infringe, restrict, or otherwise impair an individual’s rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution.
Unlawful Discrimination
A person may not develop or deploy an AI system with the intent to unlawfully discriminate against a protected class in violation of state or federal law. A disparate impact alone is not sufficient to demonstrate an intent to discriminate. Certain insurance entities and federally insured financial institutions are exempt provided they comply with or are regulated by other laws.
Certain Sexually Explicit Content and Child Pornography
AI systems may not be developed or distributed with the intent of producing or distributing visual material in violation of Texas Penal Code § 43.26, deep fake videos or images in violation of Texas Penal Code § 21.165, or engaging in explicit text-based conversations that simulate or describe sexual conduct as defined by Texas Penal Code § 43.25 while impersonating or imitating minors.
Requirements Under The Act Include:
Disclosure to Consumers
A governmental agency that makes available an AI system intended to interact with consumers must disclose to each consumer, before or at the time of the interaction, that the consumer is interacting with an AI system. The disclosure must be clear and conspicuous and written in plain language.
If an AI system is used in relation to health care services or treatment, the provider of the service or treatment must provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure to the recipient of the service or treatment or the recipient’s personal representative not later than the date the service or treatment is first provided, except in the case of emergency, in which case the provider shall provide the required disclosure as soon as reasonably possible.
5th and 14th Amendments (Due Process and Equal Protection):
AI use of algorithms in its software decision making can incorporate the bias of the programmer which can violate due process and equal protection under the law. Algorithmic decision-making in sentencing, bail, and benefits would potentially violate due process and equal protection under the constitution due to bias of the AI software programmer. Such biasness has been shown to already exist in some of the current AI models being used showing a left leaning bias against Republicans, conservatives and Christians. Whether they rise up to a constitutional violation is for the courts, for better or worse, to decide.
Courts have recognized that AI can infringe on rights to name, portrait, and personal information by creating unauthorized virtual images or deepfakes that misrepresent an individual’s identity or dignity. See Texas’ TRAIGA to see how states are addressing this.