01
Human Welfare Is the Measure
A project should be judged by its effects on people and place, not only by computing capacity, capital investment, or speed to construction.
UNAUTOMATED — THE HUMAN INTELLIGENCE PROJECT
Automate the work. Never automate the human.
HUMAN JUDGMENT. REAL CONSEQUENCE. A BETTER FUTURE.
UNAUTOMATED.ORG
Practical Guide 006
Responsible AI Infrastructure
Artificial intelligence infrastructure is physical. It depends on land, water, electricity, roads, safety systems, and communities. This is a practical public-education resource, neither automatic support nor automatic opposition.
Does this project serve the people and place that will live with its consequences?
Official Unautomated Position
Unautomated supports the responsible development of digital infrastructure when the people, places, and public systems that host it are treated as part of the project rather than as costs that can be placed somewhere else.
We are neither reflexively for data center development nor reflexively against it. We reject the false choice between technological progress and community protection.
01
A confident presentation is not proof. Major claims about water, power, noise, air, jobs, taxes, safety, and sustainability should be documented and independently reviewable.
02
A community should not assume every new project resembles an older facility. It should also not accept a label such as advanced, closed loop, or efficient without defined boundaries and measurable performance.
03
Important protections belong in permits, agreements, ordinances, rates, plans, reporting duties, and enforcement provisions.
04
The review should address construction, normal operation, emergencies, expansion, ownership changes, equipment replacement, and the end of the facility life.
Complete review
A project should be understood as a complete physical system—not simply as a building, an investment figure, or a single first phase.
The full campus, planned phases, substations, transmission, generators, batteries, water and wastewater facilities, roads, and likely expansion.
Water sources, withdrawal and consumption, wastewater, drought conditions, cooling design, and site-appropriate alternatives.
Maximum demand, reliability, specialized infrastructure, ratepayer protection, and responsibility for cost and stranded risk.
Mechanical sound, vibration, generator testing, emissions, batteries, fuel, fire planning, responders, and emergency operations.
Siting, access, traffic, stormwater, construction impacts, compatible land use, and effects beyond the property line.
Permanent employment, taxes after incentives, public service costs, workforce opportunities, infrastructure improvements, and lasting benefit.
Written conditions, monitoring, public reporting, correction, material changes, decommissioning, site restoration, and financial security.
Start at the first meeting
The purpose is to reveal the complete project, the hardest conditions, the ownership of risk, and the strength of accountability.
Ask for the full campus and intended buildout, not only the first phase.
Request maximum demand and emergency conditions, not only annual averages.
Distinguish water sources and require a mandatory shortage response.
Require a comparison of reasonable alternatives and their community tradeoffs.
Identify the infrastructure, schedule, and responsibility if forecasts do not hold.
Examine continuous, tonal, low-frequency, generator, construction, and cumulative sound.
Review backup power, batteries, fuel, fire planning, responders, monitoring, and runoff control.
Separate temporary activity from permanent employment and lasting public benefit.
Convert important claims into written conditions, reporting, inspection, correction, and remedies.
Address expansion, ownership changes, equipment, decommissioning, restoration, and continuing obligations.
Human First
01
A project should be judged by its effects on people and place, not only by computing capacity, capital investment, or speed to construction.
02
Water, electricity, air, public safety, roads, land, and emergency capacity are shared systems, not blank inputs.
03
04
Residents and ordinary utility customers should not bear unreasonable financial, operational, environmental, or infrastructure risk.
05
Terms such as closed loop, efficient, clean, renewable, quiet, and sustainable should be defined, measured, and independently reviewable.
06
Communities should expect a documented comparison of available designs and a clear explanation of why the selected approach fits the location. A design that is responsible in one climate, watershed, grid, or land use pattern may be irresponsible in another.
07
People should receive understandable information early enough to influence the project, not after the important choices are fixed.
08
Actual water, power, noise, emissions, incidents, and public commitments should be reported in a form the community can understand.
09
Approval should include monitoring, response deadlines, remedies, and authority to require changes when actual performance differs from what was promised.
10
No project is inevitable merely because demand is growing. Communities retain the standing to choose better technology, better terms, a better site, a different scale, or no project as proposed.
Free educational PDFs
Each document opens directly from the owner-provided public file in a new tab. No registration is required.
Free educational 44-page PDF
A Community Guide to Data Center Development
Open PDFFree educational PDF
The Official Unautomated Position on Data Center Development
Open PDFFree educational PDF
Before Approving a Data Center Development Project
Open PDFFree educational PDF
Ten Public Principles for Responsible Digital Infrastructure
Open PDFFree educational 50-question PDF
A structured review tool for the complete project and its conditions
Open PDFEducational resource only. These materials are not legal, engineering, environmental, utility, land-use, financial, public-safety, or regulatory advice. Every project is site specific. Communities should use qualified professionals and applicable law to evaluate a proposal and convert appropriate protections into enforceable public action.