It’s located on the Ruby Pipeline which will serve as the primary source of energy in the short term. Additionally, the data center being classified as a national security site, is located near the Utah Test and Training Range.
Longer term the facility is looking at nuclear facilities for power and the possibility for a runway and aviation facilities.
The primary customer of this facility will be the United States military.
Good luck. The data center is classified as a national security site and has the Utah Test and Training Range base nearby.
They’re building it with the intention of military security.
Many local government’s aren’t on the home rule, they follow some form of the Dillon Rule. This applies to utilities and land use. For some local areas they are required by some degree to follow the State’s allocation and billing of utilities to remain classified as a public utility in the State.
In many areas our legal framework at the State and local level were never made to handle what’s coming down the pipe with new advances. This is why I always indicate that data centers and their impact need to be addressed at the local level. That’s why I think Federal regulation is the wrong step for the building part of AI. This is very much a local and/or State level that needs to desperately be answered there.
The good news is that we see more people who are involved with their local government with this issue. But this underlying issue has been one since the 1970s, it’s just that these companies have hired firms that are incredibly well versed in the shortcomings of local ordinances and State law. It’s super difficult to patch up flaws in the laws when they’re being exploited at rapid fire pace.
That supply is constrained artificially for particular markets. There’s nothing that stops Samsung, Hynix, or Micron from indicating particular runs for different sectors. And if those three had not removed other competition, we would have producers to increase that supply.
Again, this doesn’t absolve the AI industry in the least. But we have makers that are only making limited selections of product for pure gain and are able to do that via their manipulation of the market. We don’t always have to have a good guy and a bad guy, it can bad guys all around.
We are paying more for a PlayStation so that idiots can use ChatGPT to mislead people on dating apps – something is rotten in the state of gaming
I need people to understand, AI is the current “thing”. We have an industry that produces memory for this planet that is a functional monopoly. Today their excuse is AI. But their excuse for that sudden increase changes roughly every four years. And we continue to let them get away with it, because we collectively blame the consumer.
And do know, I’m not saying AI companies get pass from me. That’s not the point here. The large AI companies and us regular people are consumers of the exact same product that only three companies provide. Those three companies have been legally found guilty in several courts of law across the world of colluding to increase prices, and because there’s not really any other alternative, they chalk the fines up as the cost of business and we write it off as a necessary evil.
But when we blame AI (which there’s lots to blame AI companies for, again that’s beside the point here) we are just blaming a consumer of a product. We are basically saying “Why do they get that thing I wanted. I should be the one who gets it, not them.” Now there’s a lot of industry regulation and international treaties that ensure we’re at the bottom of the list and AI companies pay into keeping that status quo. But let’s be real here, if it wasn’t them, it would be someone else.
When we say the reason computers and technology is getting expensive is because of AI, we are actually avoiding the real culprit here. A tightly controlled market, not unlike say the diamond business of old. And should AI fade away (which math equations that represent ways to optimize pattern matching are something we’ve found to be incredibly helpful) that tightly controlled, highly colluded, industry remains. And then we eventually find ourselves right back where we left off and are convinced to blame something else.
Again, this isn’t trying to absolve the sins of AI companies. But it’s to point out that this isn’t an “AI has done all of this all by itself.” And when we do that, we’re providing cover for an industry that largely runs corrupt with impunity.
“It’s an emergency. Come back when it’s a catastrophy.”
— The United States on literally everything
Firmware on these is pretty tight. They’re usually using CC2510s or CC2530s. The CC2510 has a voltage glitch hack that you can use to attempt to read the contents via the DCOUPL capcitor, but it’s not very effective and you can only read a few bytes per attack.
You can see a github some tools some have created here. Eventually someone is going to read the firmware off theses and be able to hack them, it’s just a matter of time.
So why wouldn’t that extend to all those other things I listed?
There’s a fundamental difference between the action prohibited and the means by which that is carried out. We can ban drunk driving, now we can enforce that by arresting people driving drunk or shooting everyone who walks out of a bar that touches a car. The latter is extreme but technically does the thing we are after. If we murder everyone who walks out of bar drunk, we technically prevent drunk drivers.
That’s the issue. We are trying to make it where computers keep us in check. That’s a bad idea for sort of the same reasons why installing breathalyzers in every car would be a bad idea. We’re trying to paper over actual enforcement. So that way when there’s a failure we don’t have to blame law makers for making bad choices or law enforcement for not doing their job, we can just blame computers.
I just hope you can understand why that’s bad.
Like… The flock cameras. Made to be able to pinpoint the motions of criminals so that law enforcement doesn’t have to. That’s a great starting intention, but having cameras that watch everyone at all times, that’s bad. And I think you can understand why it would be bad.
Kids still drink, kids still vape, kids still get behind the wheel when they ought not to. It’s up to us humans to enforce our rules on other humans. And the more we forget that, the more we hand power over to whoever is controlling the computers or technical aspects or whatever.
If parents don’t want their kids watching porn, that’s a pretty easy fix that doesn’t require us to hand over critical functions of our computers to some 3rd party to, at some later date, do something we know not of.
Like goodness how is the bad aspects of this not obvious outright? Like how did we start getting to a point where we’re so blind to how all of this can go off the rails so quickly? All these are bad things for reasons that’s really complicated that might not fit in 5000 characters or less. But they’re bad. The whole having a computer verify age by scanning the barcode, what happens when that company signs off on a deal with health insurance? What would happen if the Kroger plus card data was sent over to your insurance provider? Everything you bought at the grocery store is something that your insurance provider has access to?
Like c’mon how are we not seeing this? It’s not about “kid should have access to porn”, it’s about how we go about enforcing the whole “kids shouldn’t have access to porn.” You have to understand, I’m making a statement not about the “ends,” I’m making a statement about the “means.”
We all seem to be always getting so caught up on the end goal that we forget to stop and consider the actual path we’ve selected. We’re so preoccupied with whether or not we can prevent something, that we don’t stop to think if we should reconsider how we go about it.
Please I’m begging you, there’s a really important point in this and we keep failing to see it, A LOT! Like, I’m glad everyone is starting to understand the dangers of having a Ring camera everywhere, but it’s so frustrating that it took a Super Bowl ad for it to finally sink in how bad an idea it is when a lot of people were pointing this out very early on with the Ring TOS.
I’m getting old and I’m getting tired that this keep happening, I don’t want any of us to be agreeing to something that’s got a pretty easy fix for it already, that’s got massive ramifications down the road if we go down the purposed path. It’s not ends, it’s the means, it’s the means. We keep selecting ones that have that really bad consequences.
I’m not saying kids should be handed porn that’s such a stupid take. I can do the exact same for your comment.
Parents shouldn’t take care of their kids, instead we should let the government tell them what to think, what to eat, who to hate, and who we should be praying to.
Do you see how brain dead your comment is?
We don’t want kids downloading bad stuff.
Then parents should keep an eye on their kids. Or just don’t give them full on access to the computer.
I hate that politicians keep trying to invent technology to do a parents job.
That’s comforting to hear. Thank you.
Just when I think California couldn’t possibly come up with dumber laws, they deliver yet again.
There’s genuine concerns they could be addressing but instead go after something that’s going to be near impossible for them to enforce.
Blueprints for homemade 3D printers exist that can be built with a pretty short list of parts from Digikey.
One can only wonder as to why that may be.
Ish.
The issue is that it isn’t a straight shot as a lot of people paint. Call Centers work off of User Interfaces, AI can’t see or use those, so those UIs suddenly have to be retooled in a way that the AI understands, which that’s not easy. Additionally there’s business logic that is complex and there’s a lot of siloed knowledge, all of that is hard to extract and put into a model that’s usable.
The thing is that these LLM and AI companies were thinking the rest of the world is as structured as the data models they trained their AIs on and that’s just not the case. The LLMs can absolutely do the task if given the task correctly, it just that it’s near impossible to give the task they need to perform correctly in 100% of the situations. Hell, even humans fail this, people get written up at call centers all the time.
To put it simple, you ever hear the joke, “we don’t have to worry about AI taking the programmers jobs because then the CEO would have to accurately explain the problem they’re trying to solve/sell”? It’s IRL that, that’s holding up a ton of the LLMs in call centers. Like there’s two VERY narrow processes that the company I work for has implemented AI for, and those are really basic situations where explaining the full scope is pretty easy.
But take what I have to say with a grain of salt. I can’t say the company I work for has ever really been that gung-ho about AI to begin with. But I can tell you that it’s WAY, WAY, WAY more work to deploy AI than the tech bros like to paint it. Like you can just hit the button and “go”, but it’s going to crash and burn. Like to get it right is way more work than the AI industry let’s on.