Protesting or at least opposing data centers is highly rational for everyone except the most direct equity holders hence beneficiaries of the AI and AI value chain companies.
AI has a political constituency problem. Most people know that they are net losers from the trade off of “losing your job/economic value” in exchange for maybe “cure for cancer”, a free robot, UBI and permanent underclass status.
They have also been sold pretty convincingly, by the spiritual leaders of the AI industry no less, that this was inevitable no matter what they did. At most they could stall it and prevent it from happening right away.
In your typical lobbyist group issues, the benefits are highly concentrated among a few highly motivated and the costs are spread thin across a majority that’s unmotivated and not paying attention. As such the net losers typically have trouble organizing as an effective opposition.
AI though has everyone’s attention and has made most if not all acutely aware of the existential stakes. Ask a random person off the street the first thing they’ll tell you about AI is that it’ll take their jobs. I’m not sure we’ve ever had an issue like that.
The funny thing about the “AI inevitability” is that it still requires astronomically if not comically high economic cost with significant negative externality to come into being. The average person in a democracy could exercise their political rights to delay the “inevitable” at least in exchange for a stake. It’s perfectly rational, incentive compatible and shockingly they do.
Opposition to building data centers might be irrational at the mircoscale (they're just gonna be bulilt somewhere else). But at the mesoscale, people are profoundly doubtful about whether AI will broadly benefit society and that's not so irrational at all.