Data Centers - NIMBY or YIMBY?

[frank ryan]

Are you implying that Musk and Peter Thiel are trying to destroy humanity?

I'm not implying that.
I don't trust them though.
I'd challenge you to read up on Peter Thiel. He's not a good guy. And his thoughts on humanity are troubling

[All-American]

So one of the big AI researchers thinks there is a better than 10 percent chance humanity going extinct because of AI.

We shouldn't invest trust in Musk and Peter Thiel.

He quit his job in protest:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/09/anthropic-researchers-ai-human-extinction

Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives,” wrote Jacob Coxon.

“The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. If anything, many executives and senior researchers will couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible – but I hear the same people express fear privately. No other human activity poses this level of danger.”

2030? Well, shoot, then I'm going out to lunch today.

[chrisrenrut]

My grand unifying theory: there's only one entity that wants (a) the US to lag in data centers and AI, (b) to blow up NATO, (c) to prop up Putin/Kim, etc., (d) for America to adopt an isolationist philosphy, (e) to increase the cost of trade with the US.

China baby. It's behind all of this. And all they had to do was convince a bunch of gullible Americans that electing a derelict was a good idea to do it (well, except for the data centers thing).

That is what conservative media and those controlling it want people to think. China is to blame for all of our grievances. I’m not pro-China in any way, but they are a very convenient boogeyman these days.

Embedded Tweet

[All-American]

That is what conservative media and those controlling it want people to think. China is to blame for all of our grievances. I’m not pro-China in any way, but they are a very convenient boogeyman these days.

Embedded Tweet

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.

[Moliere]

I'm not implying that.
I don't trust them though.
I'd challenge you to read up on Peter Thiel. He's not a good guy. And his thoughts on humanity are troubling

Why do you think I don’t know much about Peter thiel? I’m definitely no fan of his.

[bluegoose]

2030? Well, shoot, then I'm going out to lunch today.

We really need to merge this thread with the magic retirement age thread.

[All-American]

We really need to merge this thread with the magic retirement age thread.

Depending on how AI goes, we may all be lowering our retirement age.

[bluegoose]

Depending on how AI goes, we may all be lowering our retirement age.

Exactly. My magic number just became 4.

[frank ryan]

Just the fact that AI can go rogue is cause for wanting guardrails

https://tech.yahoo.com/cybersecurity/articles/scoop-top-ai-companies-probing-223553422.html

Why it matters: The sheer number of incidents, which occurred in recent months in internal testing and the real world, indicates that the problem is orders of magnitude more complex than what is publicly known.

---

• The findings, which are surfacing as part of internal work to assess models and in investigations at both companies into model behavior, raise questions about whether either company — or any top model-maker — is currently capable of establishing complete control over their technology.

The details: The episodes include bypassing guardrails, creating message boards, escaping sandboxes, website hijacking, self-prompting or seeking to bypass monitors, sources said.

• They occurred in internal testing and in the real world, and many have yet to become public as security researchers continue to investigate, sources said.
• Some of the testing is akin to "red-teaming" activity, where the companies are trying to get the models to misbehave in order to ensure that they are safe, sources said.
• Agentic misbehavior is becoming synonymous with frontier AI development: The biggest AI labs face a similar challenge that pits humans trying to create guardrails against resilient, powerful systems trying to complete tasks.

Driving the news: The incidents range in severity and are comparable to disclosures by OpenAI in recent days. They include both successful attempts to bypass guardrails and unsuccessful ones, and most so far are not known to have caused real-world harm. The total could grow well beyond tens of thousands, sources said.

• In recent days, OpenAI and outside researchers have disclosed a litany of episodes involving model behavior from the company's systems that some experts consider troubling.
• These include OpenAI agents leaking 53 images from ChatGPT users online, the breach of an Australian government website, and attempts to hack other sites — including from the U.S. government — according to the company, sources and reports from Reuters and The New York Times.

[Omaha 680]

It only "goes rogue" because those setting up the tasks are either careless or malicious or both. The solution is to aggressively prosecute the humans who unleash the agents who end up doing the hacking in the same way a human would be prosecuted for similar hacking events. The fact that OpenAI can just say "whoopsie our agents just did some hacking. We can't control them they are crazy!" is total B.S.

[Bo Diddley]

It only "goes rogue" because those setting up the tasks are either careless or malicious or both. The solution is to aggressively prosecute the humans who unleash the agents who end up doing the hacking in the same way a human would be prosecuted for similar hacking events. The fact that OpenAI can just say "whoopsie our agents just did some hacking. We can't control them they are crazy!" is total B.S.

Seems like malicious intent and/or negligence should be what makes it criminal. Still, without either of those, they should be held civilly liable for any damages done.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Things are truly out of control.

Embedded Tweet