Quinn Slobodian, Pardee Professor of International History and author of Muskism (2026), was recently featured in a piece titled “Democracy blindsides Silicon Valley’s power players looking to transform the world with AI”, by Eduardo Porter for The Guardian, discussing the growing public backlash against artificial intelligence infrastructure and what it reveals about the relationship between technology, power, and democracy. In an article examining opposition to the rapid expansion of AI data centers across the United States, Slobodian argued that public skepticism is more than a reaction to local development projects, but part of a broader concern about who gets to shape the future of society.

Drawing on his research into neoliberalism and the history of capitalism, Slobodian suggested that many of Silicon Valley’s most influential leaders view democratic processes as obstacles rather than safeguards. “The Silicon Valley leadership class has a programmers’ mentality,” he shared. “For them, the messiness of democracy has no function or utility. It is only bad code.” This mindset, according to Slobodian, reflects a growing belief among some technology leaders that complex social and political challenges can be solved through technical innovation alone, often without meaningful public input or concern of environmental costs.

Regardless, Slobodian points to the inevitable clash with such leaders, “If there is one sector in the U.S. that is still globally dominant and profitable, it is tech,” he said. “They can be confident that even if there is a change of leadership, the next person will have to dance with them anyway.” Yet he also suggested that growing resistance to data center expansion demonstrates the continuing power of democratic institutions and public opinion. As communities across the country challenge AI-related development projects, Slobodian argues that the technology industry’s ambitions will ultimately have to contend with a public increasingly determined to have a voice in how transformative technologies are deployed.

Slobodian argues that the conflict over AI is fundamentally a democratic debate in addition to a technological one. While Silicon Valley’s leaders may possess enormous economic resources and political influence, growing public resistance to AI infrastructure suggests that citizens are increasingly questioning who benefits from these transformative technologies and who bears their costs: be it from job insecurity to their creep into residential areas. As opposition to data centers expands across the country, Slobodian sees a broader challenge emerging to the technology sector’s vision of progress. As he put it, “the tech barons may not care about democracy, but democracy cares about them.” The future of AI, he suggests, will depend on technological innovation, but more importantly on whether its architects are willing to engage with democratic institutions, public accountability, and the communities whose lives will be shaped by their ambitions.