Thieves Are Now Targeting AI Data Center Construction Sites for Copper and Expensive Equipment

Or maybe a goose did it, they do things like that sometimes, just watch an untitled goose game let's play...

They replaced the security guards with the smell of their own farts AI.

Some say that even if every meth head in the city showed up there would be copper left over.

You wouldnt steal a data center

I think the word you were looking for is extradite, which is sending someone home/to the country where crime was committed, to face their justice system.

Excommunication is kicking someone out of a religion/the church, specifically christian afaik, though not all use that word :)

I'm happy to contribute!

St. Rawberry

Nah, plant a protected species.

Is that a genuine question that you want to know the answer for, or is it a setup for calling the person you replied to a hypocrit when they say "yes"?

Of course. The cat's already out of the bag on that one. That data belongs to the public, not a handful of companies.

I'm sure everyone will have varying opinions on it, but if these models were fully open-sourced I'd have less of an issue. What does it for me is that these companies were unwilling to pay creators to use their work in the training data, instead choosing to pirate it to create expensive and locked down AI products which they expect us to pay for.

only Cisco switches.

Regans only eat the recycled waste of vegans.

I don't even know who that is. I just know that one picture.

He is still better known for being an absolute asshole and punching people that did not deserve it.

Copper is way easier to fence and way easier to steal. The RAM and NVME aren't getting installed until the building has functional security. The mile of copper wire to run power is locked in a trailer and might not even have a permanent fence around it yet.

How many times do we have to explain that datacenters don't run on hardware that is compatible with consumer shit?

My dad tells a story about an indicent in the 1980's, I think, where a couple of gentlemen went to Governer's Island and stole an 8ft diameter bronze screw. (Ship propeller)

I don't think they had vests, but they most likely just drove up with a flatbed like they had every right to be there. Probably even asked for help loading it.

You know that all those Frank Abagnale stories came from Frank Abagnale and we're all bullshit, right?

They're all proven liars?

You gotta love a good crowd-sourcing campaign.

also remember to not accidentally put sugar (roughly 1kg sugar [or 2 pounds] per 1000kg cement) into a coment mixer because it will completely destroy the whole batch :(

in 2008 when the housing market fell into a hole, people were ripping out copper before the banks kicked them out.

Oh no, I really hope they don't specifically target the tesla-only chargers...

Sandpaper and reflashing solve the two ways that's performed though.

Electronic component fencing has been a thing for a while (especially to regimes who aren't supposed to have them)

I don't think they'd be just sitting there in boxes as well to be installed but hey, never know.

Do gay.

Ok

They kinda did a super application that does it

Look, I generally agree. But you almost have to appreciate the simplicity in the spectacle. Its like an 80s/90s action movie... they practically look at the camera and wink like: yeah... we know. just enjoy the ride.

Also its really just functionally the equivalent of (pop) country music in video form. Family, machismo, vroom vroom, eye candy.

Components I'm paying 100x for like ram and disk. Wtf downvotes am I speaking Greek?

👋👋👋👋 pick me pick me!

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.

There certainly are different levels of criminal severity, and you've outlined that perfectly. But it has absolutely nothing to do with this because they're still stealing from someone. The people who prosecute and sentence the thieves can take those circumstances into account when determining an appropriate punishment.

Furthermore, you've failed to take your own example to its logical conclusion. The reason people are stealing baby formula in the first place is because it's too expensive. In fact, everything is becoming too expensive. That's a much broader and more serious societal issue than the act of stealing formula itself.

I'm not asking you to care. What I'm saying is that you're morally inept by not caring. Either you admonish theft across the board or you don't. People are stealing from someone else regardless of who they are.

You don't have to care, you're just wrong.

Sure, you absolutely can. That's not in contention. I am simply admonishing how two faced Lemmy is.

Wow. That is a lot of words for someone to say they have no clue what they are talking about.

Why is Lemmy like this?

There is no established consensus that subjective morality is correct over objective morality, or vice versa. Both are philosophical positions that have been debated for centuries. Acting as though one side has already been proven correct is not an argument.

The point remains simple: stealing property that does not belong to you is wrong. It does not matter whether the owner is a person, a corporation, a political group, or an organization you dislike. The act itself does not magically become moral because you disagree with the person who owns the property.

The same applies to murder. Killing someone does not stop being murder because the person is considered immoral. If I killed Adolf Hitler before his crimes were committed, it would still be murder unless there was a legitimate justification for doing so. The morality of an action cannot be determined solely by how much we dislike the target.

Are there circumstances where people may feel justified stealing materials from AI data center construction sites? Maybe. Context matters. What does not change is that the law recognizes it as theft, and theft has traditionally been considered immoral because it involves taking something that belongs to someone else through force, coercion, or deception.

The criminal justice system already accounts for circumstances. It recognizes different levels of severity, intent, and harm. That has never been the argument.

The issue is the blatant inconsistency I see on this platform. Some actions are condemned as immoral when they happen to people or organizations that the community supports, while those same actions are suddenly justified when the target is politically unpopular.

You do not get to have a moral framework that changes depending on who benefits from the outcome. If theft is wrong, it is wrong regardless of whether the victim is someone you like or someone you dislike.

There is a reason Lady Justice is blindfolded while holding a balance. Justice is supposed to be applied equally, not based on personal preference, ideology, or who people think deserves it.

For the record, I have no issue with people supporting socialism or transgender rights. I only use those examples because they're emotionally charged topics in this community, and they illustrate how quickly people's standards change depending on who the victim is.

I knew there would be at least one of you.

There's a lot that can be debated about the validity, usefulness, and impact of AI data centers or data centers in general. However, I'm not going to get into that discussion with you because it would be a waste of time when you clearly didn't read or understand what I actually wrote.

You saw the words "transgender" and "socialism" and immediately assumed I was attacking those groups, which was not the argument I was making. I don't hate either of them. Those were examples of emotionally charged topics, not the subject of my criticism.

I'm sorry, are you talking about me?

Because I never said I supported data centers. I was simply pointing out what I see as the two-faced nature of this community. In this thread, many Lemmy users are openly cheering on thieves stealing supplies from AI data center construction sites, yet those same people will turn around and condemn someone for not sharing their opinions on other issues.

Multiple people have already made assumptions about my beliefs, put words in my mouth, and assigned positions to me that I never argued for in the first place.

And that is another issue I see frequently on Lemmy: people arguing against a position they invented rather than the one someone actually stated.

For example, it often goes something like this:

"You don't like AI data centers, so you must be some kind of left-wing communist. Why don't you go eat avocado toast while listening to lo-fi music?"

Except none of that follows from what was actually said. Disagreeing with one thing does not automatically place someone into a political category.

I am 14 and this is deep.

You're absolutely correct. As would I. The fact that someone is a socialist or transgender has no bearing on the content of their character. I was simply using examples of emotionally charged topics on this particular platform.

But theft is theft. Luigi Mangione murdered the CEO of United healthcare. That is not up for debate. Whether Luigi Mangione did something morally correct is an entirely separate and highly contested question.

I will still condemn Luigi Mangione for resorting to violence in the same way that I will condemn people stealing from AI data centers. Theft is theft. Murder is murder.

On a personal level, I couldn't care less who steals what from a data center. The fewer of these things we have, the better. But my personal opinion does not change the principle. If I'm going to condemn theft when it affects people or causes I support, then I should condemn it when it affects people or causes I dislike as well.