Investigators recovered two stolen trailers carrying $1.3 million in data center supplies, including copper wire and infrastructure equipment.
Investigators recovered two stolen trailers carrying $1.3 million in data center supplies, including copper wire and infrastructure equipment.
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.
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.
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.
You just handwring about theft from them. But not wage theft.
For one reason.
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.
Wage theft impacts millions of actual humans and you’re whining about the rights you think a corporate owned tool of oppression has instead.
You actually read what I said?
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.
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
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?
No that’s not how that works at all.
At all.
And if that’s what you think or believe, I highly recommend you go back to remedial social studies class and ask a lot of questions.