1508
Thieves Are Now Targeting AI Data Center Construction Sites for Copper and Expensive Equipment (www.vice.com)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
281 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Investigators recovered two stolen trailers carrying $1.3 million in data center supplies, including copper wire and infrastructure equipment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 4 months ago (20 children)

LLMs are built on theft of intellectual property and copyrighted products by capital managers who hoard wealth propped up on stolen wages and exploitation, look in the mirror before you yap on about selective application of morals.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [+] -12 points 4 months ago (19 children)

    So absolutely none of that has anything to do with people stealing copper from AI data center construction sites.

    You can do all the moral finger-pointing you want. The moment you start selectively deciding who is and isn't a thief is the moment the justice system starts breaking down. You don't get to decide who can and cannot commit crimes. We already have enough of that in our American political system, considering who our president is.

    To address your other point, no copyright infringement has been found to have occurred in the training of flagship AI models. If you'd like to debate that, that's fine, but I don't really feel like arguing about it because we're talking about the morality of theft, which you apparently view as something that exists on a selective gradient. Good for you, sir. Go play Robin Hood in your own neighborhood.

    Wealth inequality is one of the worst and most pressing issues in the world today. There is nothing I consider more damaging than the growing wealth gap, especially in America. You're absolutely right about that. But once again, it has absolutely nothing to do with construction materials being stolen from AI data center construction sites.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Wealth inequality is one of the worst and most pressing issues in the world today. There is nothing I consider more damaging than the growing wealth gap, especially in America. You're absolutely right about that. But once again, it has absolutely nothing to do with construction materials being stolen from AI data center construction sites.

    Doesn't it though? If there weren't such rampant wealth inequality perhaps people wouldn't be so inclined towards a life of crime. It has at least a little bit to do with it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago* (9 children)

    You can do all the moral finger-pointing you want. The moment you start selectively deciding who is and isn’t a thief is the moment the justice system starts breaking down.

    It broke down long ago. You care more about copper in a techbro's plagiarism machine than you do about all the wage theft ever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    No.

    You're stating a position that I never took. I never said I supported AI data centers. My point was about how users on Lemmy are quick to encourage criminal behavior when it targets something they dislike, while condemning the same behavior when it is directed at something they support. That's called being two-faced.

    For the record, I do not support AI data centers. They could all burn down for all I care. If every LLM shut down tomorrow, nothing in my life would change. I consider AI data centers a blight on the environment, and many communities do not want them built in their areas.

    I pray to the God I don't believe in that they don't build one anywhere near me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (7 children)

    You’re stating a position that I never took. I never said I supported AI data centers.

    You just handwring about theft from them. But not wage theft.

    For one reason.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    No. I was talking about the two faced nature of this platform.

    I've admonished data centers the entire time in this exchange. Don't tell me what I wrote about. I know what I wrote about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (5 children)

    Wage theft impacts millions of actual humans and you're whining about the rights you think a corporate owned tool of oppression has instead.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    For the record, I do not support Al data centers. They could all burn down for all I care. If every LLM shut down tomorrow, nothing in my life would change. I consider Al data centers a blight on the environment, and many communities do not want them built in their areas.

    You actually read what I said?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

    They're getting built and the objections of the people are ignored.

    Rule of law protects the inanimate toys of techbros.

    It does not protect human workers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    I mean you're wrong. Literally everything you said is wrong.

    First, the idea that AI data centers are simply being built while ignoring all public objections is factually incorrect. A substantial number of proposed AI data center projects have been delayed, scaled back, or canceled specifically because of community opposition, permitting challenges, environmental concerns, and political pushback. Public resistance is having a measurable impact.

    Second, "the rule of law protects the inanimate toys of techbros" is just rhetoric. The rule of law protects property rights, contracts, and individuals. Whether it does so fairly in every case is a legitimate debate, and I agree that corporations often have disproportionate influence in American politics. But that's very different from claiming the law exists only to protect corporations or their assets.

    Finally, I don't even know what you mean by "it does not protect human workers." Protect them from what? Wage theft? Unsafe working conditions? Wrongful termination? Union busting? There are entire bodies of labor law dedicated to protecting workers, even if you believe those protections are insufficient or poorly enforced. As written, your statement is so broad that it's impossible to evaluate because it doesn't identify what specific protection you think is missing.

    Source

    Source

    Source

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    The rule of law protects property rights, contracts, and individuals.

    On paper, sure. In practice, most individuals aren't protected.

    Finally, I don’t even know what you mean by “it does not protect human workers.” Protect them from what? Wage theft? Unsafe working conditions? Wrongful termination? Union busting? There are entire bodies of labor law dedicated to protecting workers, even if you believe those protections are insufficient or poorly enforced.

    Well, in that case our system is perfect and we should be concerned about the poor techbros' oppression tools. Lord knows you're concerned with absolutely nothing else.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago

    So I literally just proved to you that consumer protections are working and provided three sources showing exactly how that's happening.

    And what do you say? "Nuh-uh," then move on to make wild assertions that I only care about "techbros."

    Look, man, if you want to be upset about something to boost your own self-worth, you do that. Keep making things up if it makes you feel better or superior. Just know that you're wrong, and you're finding validation on a platform that's little more than an echo chamber for bandwagon rhetoric.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    The moment you start selectively deciding who is and isn’t a thief is the moment the justice system starts breaking down.

    Isn't this exactly what a jury of your peers is intended for? So people - the members of the affected community - can decide who is and isn't a thief, after ensuring they're provided with all the facts of the case?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (4 children)

    You don't think AI eliminating vast swaths of jobs and exasperating the wealth inequality that's starving the economy has anything to do with an increase in poor and desperate people willing to resort to crime to surive? You do realise that data centers and AI are directly dependent, yes? That conclusion is just burying your head in the sand. Let's not forget who started the moral finger wagging here, pointing to one crime while blinding themselves to another for whatever the irrational reasoning is. Like this particular crime is just happening in a vacuum, and AI isn't infiltrating every aspect of society by design. What's it like to be that selective?

    "no copyright infringement has been found to have occurred in the training of flagship AI models" I'm just not going to engage with this level of disingenuous assertion, you're either deluded or you're a liar.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Okay, I'll address this briefly.

    When a human artist paints a painting and sells it, does the estate of Michelangelo receive royalties because that artist was inspired by his work?

    The reason you believe LLM training is copyright infringement is that you fundamentally misunderstand how the technology works. That's a common theme on this platform among people who oppose AI. Many dislike it because it's become the popular position, not because they understand how these models actually function.

    When an AI generates something, it creates a novel output in response to a prompt. It is producing something new, not copying existing works verbatim. Copyright infringement generally requires copying protected expression, and simply learning patterns from publicly available data is not the same thing.

    Moreover, you can't have it both ways. If information is publicly available, then it is available to be read, analyzed, and learned from. Either it's public, or it isn't.

    More importantly, none of this was the point of my original comment. I'm only addressing it because you clearly want to discuss AI.

    For the record, I am completely opposed to what many companies are doing with AI data centers. I think the current trajectory is environmentally damaging, economically questionable, and, in some cases, a humanitarian concern. I've said this repeatedly. You're free to believe me or not, I can't prove my sincerity, but that has been my position throughout.

    Now, would you like to discuss the actual topic of conversation, the two-faced nature of Lemmy?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    You couldn't pay me enough to waste my brain cells on your disingenuous, fart-sniffing sophistry and bad faith horseshit, so no I don't think I will, get better please.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago

    Bad faith?

    That is an amazing claim coming from somebody who is literally arguing in bad faith.

    You already have a predisposition and bias against AI.

    You read my comment and immediately thought, "He's defending AI because he's calling me out on my bullcrap." I'm actually not. I've been making two points: you don't know how AI functions, and you don't know what copyright is.

    AI models don't use their training data to reproduce that training data verbatim. Therefore, the training process itself is not copyright infringement. Using publicly available material to train AI is not illegal, nor is it inherently morally reprehensible.

    If companies are stealing data to train their AI, then they are breaking the law and should be punished and prosecuted for it.

    I do not support that in any way. I also do not support the construction of massive AI data centers. They're a blight on society.

    You're upset because I called you out for being stupid. Instead of responding to my arguments, you called me a fart eater and threw around words like "sophistry."

    And then you say I'm the one arguing in bad faith.

    What a hypocrite.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent