"It's only a crime because it's against the law." - someone, inevitably

> It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

— Upton Sinclair

> Yes, and big part of it is public is ok with that. For example, did you protest while Uber was breaking many local laws while growing?

I never supported what Uber, either. Why would you assume anyone did?

Lots of people did complain or actively take steps to punish them for lawbreaking, yeah?

Are you really out here stanning white collar crimes? The reason this is ok is because people aren’t angry enough about it? Your comment absolutely boggles the mind.

What? Do you think that public opinion drives prosecution decisions?

If that were true, no one would go to jail for marijuana possession.

> government officials might find themselves in a courtroom having to demonstrate how they applied the law equally

The government has no obligation to apply the law equally, although they are prohibited from applying the law unequally to achieve certain discriminatory aims.

Or even state vs local. These developers have a LOT of money and often use it to pass state level legislation that prevents cities or counties from having a say in these projects.

Take Hood County where a Texas senator prevented them from considering a construction pause. Or West Virginia’s Power Generation and Consumption Act which completely banned local government oversight. Or Georgia’s HB 1059 Siting Mandates. I could go on and on but the point here is the playing field is not level. These data centers often have the power to completely skirt local zoning laws and regulation. And even when they do it illegally, there's rarely any consequences

> The Colossus I Data Center was brought online in 122 days from breaking ground to operation. Some hail that as an achievement, but others (like myself) see it as a brutal pace to avoid having to answer pesky questions like "How will this affect the nearby area?" and "What sort of mitigation plans to do you have for the data center's waste?" The data center is powered by dozens of unpermitted gas turbines, which they initially refused to acknowledge were running until journalists and groups used thermal imaging to prove they were indeed on and spewing toxins into the air (including smog, formaldehyde, and other nasty things). This resulted in a suit from the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) on behalf of the NAACP for violations of the Clean Air Act. Their claim was that the company operated without public oversight or accountability for these illegal constructions and sought legal stoppage until proper accounting can be done of the effects of said turbines.

This is what I'm talking about. A non-profit and random journalists shouldn't be the ones holding them accountable in the first place. And a "lawsuit" is hardly accountability either. People need to go to prison for white collar crime.

> Enter the Federal Government and the Department of Justice, who pushed the courts to dismiss the suit as a matter of national security, stating that the xAI models were needed for "artificial-intelligence innovation that supports the Department of War’s military operations." So, residents are left without legal means of contesting these developments, barring individual claims and damages.

And this is the reason why a "lawsuit" isn't accountability. When the company can just pay some politicians to get it dismissed.

None of that matters, unless you can buy a Tesla with FSD enabled. This has been promised so many times, for so many years, that it's become a bit of a joke.

Then show me a pattern of flouting regulations (which I can easily believe he has). His terrible views on unrelated issues are irrelevant.

Correct me if I'm wrong: Is the article about a badly acting LLM?

Facts and "irrelevant details" are not mutually exclusive.

> It would be bad enough if the data center was used to research cures to cancer, but instead it is creating nudes of children.

Sorry, but what it is being used for is irrelevant to whether it is flouting the laws.

As I said in my original comment, the reason I stopped reading was because the language was trying to bias readers. And as the responses show, they sure as Hell did.

It seems critical reading is becoming a lost skill.

I'll bite. The title is about ignoring regulations related to a data center. How is any of what I quoted relevant?

If the article were about Elon Musk's racist views, then by all means I'd be fine with it. But his (or Grok's) racism is irrelevant to the laws he is violating. Would it be OK if a well respected billionaire flouted those laws?

Not really, its a valid way to manage ones time, because if you deem the message to not be I the quality you expect, you can just find a better article.

I never claimed it was. Are you willing to read pointless stuff just because it's accurate?

The statement of irrelevant facts.

It's like criticizing Stallman's hygiene. Who cares?

Many such cases

This isn't a formal publication. This is the type of post that used to be celebrated in hacker culture. The type of post that purposefully flounders respectability politics even if it's just for aesthetic forms of rebellion. Clearly it's offending the type of people it meant to :)

> Pollution is bad but it's a different story if it's curing cancer vs making nudes of female politicians.

Completely disagree. That sort of reasoning is why plenty of African Americans were forcibly moved from their own properties in the 20th century. "The land will be put to great use!" (And in a lot of cases, it was - still wrong).