The attempted firebombing of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s San Francisco home should be a wake-up call. Had the attacker, who also reportedly made threats against OpenAI’s offices, hit a window rather than the side of the house, against which his Molotov cocktail merely “bounced” off, the event could have been far more horrific.

Just a couple of days later, two men were alleged to have fired on Altman’s house, which should have set the conditions for a national conversation about the horrifying prospect of revivified, violent Luddism.

To its credit, the Washington Post editorial board tried to start that very conversation last week when its members raised alarms over a violent attack on an Indianapolis-based lawmaker’s house — an attack in which 13 bullets were fired at his home. “The gunman left a note on the lawmaker’s doorstep,” the Post observed, “NO DATA CENTERS.”

The editorial linked that act of violence to a broader hostility toward the construction of data centers, which facilitate modern marvels like video streaming services, cloud data storage, and, yes, artificial intelligence. “It wouldn’t be the first time in history that deranged Luddites turn to violence to fight the advancement of frontier technology,” the Post’s editors note.

On Sunday, research analyst Andrew Follett charitably outlined the populist grievance with data centers and their construction. But he did so to comprehensively rebut their claims. “Data centers are not a luxury or a niche issue; they are the indispensable infrastructure for the AI-driven economy,” he observed. “Prioritizing their rapid build-out, paired with bold expansion and reform of the bulk power system, is essential for long-term U.S. competitiveness against China and sustained American prosperity.”

Follett’s argument is persuasive. But not everyone on the other side of this debate is interested in arguments.

© National Review