https://heatmap.news/politics/americ...a-centers-pollAt least seven in 10 Americans would now oppose a data center being built near their home, according to a new Heatmap Pro poll, a record low that reveals a staggering shift in public opinion against the facilities powering the artificial intelligence boom.
The survey, conducted by Embold Research, finds that an outright majority of Americans are now strongly opposed to data center construction in their area. Young people, Democrats, and rural voters are more hostile to the projects, but they are broadly unpopular with Americans across geographic and political categories.
NIMBYs gonna love
(Story is at least 10 months old)
https://techcrunch.com/2026/06/04/me...ters-in-tents/
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-in...e-of-expansion
That's gonna power the Metaverse, right Zuck?
AI is eating RAM
https://this.weekinsecurity.com/meta...ts-ai-chatbot/Meta confirms thousands of Instagram accounts were hacked by abusing its AI chatbot
Meta is notifying thousands of people whose Instagram accounts were hijacked during the months-long abuse of the company's AI chatbot, which hackers repeatedly tricked into taking control of a person's account.
In a new data breach notification letter, seen by this week in security, Meta has revealed for the first time how many people had their accounts hijacked as part of the long-running hacking campaign, which was discovered earlier this week and first reported by 404 Media ($) and TechCrunch ($). The number of affected accounts gives some clarity as to how widespread this hacking campaign was, and for how long it operated.
According to the data breach notice filed with Maine's attorney general's office late on Friday, Meta notified at least 20,225 people that their accounts had been compromised, including 30 people in Maine.
The compromises allowed the hackers to take over the person's entire Instagram and any linked accounts, including obtaining contact information, dates of birth, and profile information, as well as the ability to access the person's posts, direct messages, and account activity, the notice reads.
...
tl;dr
the hackers asked Meta AI to reset other people's Insta passwords and email them back
https://unessays.substack.com/p/talk-is-cheapTalk is Cheap
What the data says about the operational impacts of LLM use in the software industry
My stance originates from stumbling on Faros.ai - a software development telemetry firm. They have products that pipe into common development tools like Jira, Github, CI/CD pipelines, and service ticket tracking systems to directly measure major output metrics for software development teams. This data is different in kind than productivity studies in that it actually instruments value delivery to customers.
Faros published a report in March that measures the impact of LLM use on 4000 teams over 2 years. The methodology is quite strong. Their metrics are comparing the same organizations between their lowest AI adoption quarter versus their highest after some standardization. This eliminates a lot of confounding variables.
This is, by far, the best data I’ve been able to locate that directly measures the value delivery impact of LLM use in aggregate across software development processes.
It’s bad.
Really, really, really bad.
I’m going to give you the headline conclusions now from my analysis:
* Faros’ customers, at the peak of their AI use are probably shipping less software into production.
* On average, Faros’ customers’ bottleneck is located in the review stage of their software production process.
* Faros’ customers - on average - are trading off developer productivity for product quality and finished feature throughput.
If you take this data seriously (as I do) and you have no data specific to your organization to contradict it - then I think this data should adjust your priors about LLM use in your org to this:
Your org is likely shipping less output at lower quality.
By employing stochastic black boxes to build our products, we’ve simultaneously accelerated defect injection into the software production process and relocated the defect removal process to review where it is much less effective. These two drivers are increasing rework and subtracting from overall product throughput.
....
bandwagon effect
https://www.texastribune.org/2026/06...ion-sales-tax/Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday released sweeping regulatory recommendations on data centers for the Legislature to pass in the 2027 session, as Texas grapples with an explosion of artificial intelligence-driven development and soaring power demands.
In a letter to state regulators, Abbott outlined a series of proposals designed to ensure data centers shoulder the costs of their growth rather than Texas ratepayers.
Last edited by Winehole23; 4 Weeks Ago at 12:57 PM.
debt-heavy now
telemetry data from 22,000 users
productivity is up, output is far less correct, safe and maintainable
https://www.faros.ai/blog/ai-acceler...lash-takeaways
"We're shipping so much more code with AI!"
"Good, stable code?"
"Oh heavens no. No no no. not at all. We couldn't possibly"
"Elias Thorne"
https://www.404media.co/elias-thorne...-keeper-story/But with all the world’s literature as its training data, why do LLMs seem to default so often to the lighthouse? It comes down to how model makers try to safety-align and sanitize their outputs. “We found many stories in WildChat are not safe for work. This led us to hypothesize that models going through alignment are preferring a small slice of WildChat stories, like a bottleneck,” Hamilton said. “It isn't that Elias stories are frequent, but that they're just so safe.”
German court rules Google is legally liable for its AI content
The Regional Court of Munich hit Google with a temporary injunction barring the company from spreading false claims about two Munich-based publishers through its AI-generated search overviews (case no. 26 O 869/26). The court classified Google as a direct infringer because the "AI overview" is its own content, not just a list of search results.
Google's AI overviews had falsely tied two publishing companies to scams, subscription traps, and shady business practices for certain search queries. According to the court, the AI mixed up information about other, genuinely sketchy companies with the plaintiffs and drew connections that didn't appear in any of the linked sources. The publishers sent Google a cease-and-desist letter, but Google didn't respond appropriately.Google's AI overviews work nothing like traditional search results, the court argues. The AI rewrites and judges results "in its own words and according to its own structure," the ruling says. In the case at hand, for example, it opened with confident claims like "Yes, [company] is known for dubious business practices," then built its own structure with a summary, red flags for the alleged scam, and tips for users.
The court also found that the AI overview made claims "that are not even made in the search results." None of the linked sources drew any connection between the plaintiffs and the shady companies the AI mentioned. The court called these "the defendant's own statements."
Google built the AI, Google offered it to users, so Google owns what it produces, "because it alone has influence over the AI's offering and the algorithms with which the AI operates."https://the-decoder.com/landmark-ger...false-answers/The court also examined existing rulings from Germany's Federal Court of Justice (BGH), which gave traditional search engines and autocomplete limited liability. The BGH had argued that search engine operators were only liable as indirect infringers because they merely made third-party content findable. A proactive duty to check results would threaten how search engines work.
The Munich court found that this reasoning doesn't apply to AI overviews. A regular search engine just points to outside websites. But AI overviews generate "independent, new, and substantive statements" by evaluating and combining content from various third-party sites. And only Google can check those statements, the court said, "at least by comparing the underlying third-party websites with its own statements based on them."
The court also noted that the AI overview is "by no means absolutely necessary" for using the internet. Traditional search results already help users sort through information, the AI overview is just an extra feature.
GIGO
futurism.com/artificial-i...Google's AI Overviews are treating en ies from the SCP Foundation — the famously fake fan-fiction universe — as if they're real.
The AI feature often contextualizes SCP en ies as actual discoveries while describing made-up SCP records as "official" do ents.
whipping up fear is part of the pitch
https://www.ft.com/content/bb04671c-...f-0f8e57ed5d1b
Trump extorts OpenAI and Anthropic simultaneously
https://www.axios.com/2026/06/25/tru...-model-release
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
