DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
48% Positive
Analyzed from 3049 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#data#center#don#illegal#law#laws#government#irrelevant#turbines#crime
Discussion (80 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
If we want to prevent such behaviour (and in case it's not clear from the above, I think we should) then we either need far more brutally punative financial penalties, or for executives to be held personally and criminally liable in such cases.
For example, if a data center is illegally running gas turbines, the penalty could be that the data center must be shut down for 3 years and no equipment can be removed from the data center during that time.
With financial penalties, there's always calculus on whether the penalty is high enough to deter the action. But the only reason they'd want to, for example, use illegal power generators at a data center is to run the data center. Losing access to 100% of the value of that data center for 3 years would make the calculus easy: it wouldn't be worth it for the companies. They'd lose the entire reason for doing it and so much of the capital investment in equipment as it depreciated during those 3 years.
With AI companies believing the market is worth trillions, it's hard to imagine a financial penalty high enough to deter illegal actions. It might need to be in the hundreds of billions - a level which they probably can't pay given their current resources and which governments wouldn't levy. Not that they'll essentially confiscate a data center and its hardware for multiple years as a penalty either.
Something isn't really a big deal, it doesn't make sense to stick it to a company.
This is better at balancing the public interest of legal compliance against the public interest in the product the company provides.
It's basically the same trade-off with set in criminal punishments in general. If we made it it the death penalty for jaywalking or littering, we would have a lot less of it. Seems like a slam dunk right? Why don't we just do that?
This is the thing the HN crowd doesn't seem to get whenever a post is on here about data centers. They are often times doing outright illegal things and we simply don't have the mechanisms to punish "white collar crime" the way we punish other crime. The populist uprising against them is happening because people have tried everything else first
— Upton Sinclair
Most people believe that the law should mirror the ethics or morality of the society, and absent something clearly harmful, most people don’t understand why something with nobody clearly harmed should be illegal.
Just a reminder that when you're building a business, having land and a datacenter ready and cannot be switched on, with idle staff, costs the business money.
xAI could only draw 7-8MW from the grid and needed to run 10s of 1000s of H1000s. They shipped in 15 gas turbines as a more permanent onsite power plant while TVA/MLGW worked on expanding the grid supply to 150-300MW.
So you can get upset at musk all you want, but he has a business to run, and waiting for a full grid build out isn't practical.
> the illegal, unpermitted gas turbines they've been running at their Memphis Colossus data center
Illegal. These turbines are illegal. What xAI under Musk's direction is doing is illegal. A business that must break the law to be practical isn't a business, it's a criminal organization operating by hurting people (which is WHY it's illegal to run gas turbines like this), and both it and those running it must be held accountable.
You're arguing that it's fine to break the law if it would otherwise cost a business money. I don't accept that, and nobody else in this community should either.
I expect they have permission
No. Calling it illegal is just something people do because they hate musk. They fell into a loop hole and had no permits as they were technically allowed if they stayed in 1 spot for less than 364 days. EPA later determined they did not qualify and required permits, permits were later granted.
Musk operated in a grey area to run his business to avoid having an idle data center while other people dragged their feet.
I purposely cut off `illegal` because calling it `illegal` was bad faith to begin with. But it's not unexpected that musk haters will come out raising banners in protest.
Oh, right! This one was cheaper because it wasn't ready. Cheaper is gooder for business.
I never supported what Uber, either. Why would you assume anyone did?
If that were true, no one would go to jail for marijuana possession.
And the government would have to pay to fight and might be on the hook if they lost.
And “clearly breaking the law” isn’t always clear; I don’t k ow anything about this particular case but it sounds like zoning or applying utility laws to non-utility companies or environmental regulations being used to make construction financially untenable. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for opposition to off-grid natural gas turbines; you don’t get much cleaner off grid power that works 24x7.
I wish I lived in your world.
The government has no obligation to apply the law equally, although they are prohibited from applying the law unequally to achieve certain discriminatory aims.
Bring it on. Data center developers are getting government officials to sign NDAs as an end-run around the democratic process (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/04/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas...).
And that sounds like pro-datacenter corruption to me, and it's way better documented that the aspersions you're casting.
> there is very little grassroots opposition other than typical NIMBYism you see in all development projects
That's bullshit. About the only thing Americans agree on is that they hate datacenters: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/12/opinion/data-center-ai-de...:
> Americans hate data centers. They really, really hate them.
A Gallup poll from May found that 71 percent of Americans would oppose a data center being built in their area. In rural communities in Utah and North Carolina, regular people are organizing to stop data center construction, speaking out at public hearings and pressuring politicians for bans....
> According to polling by Heatmap News, more than half of all Americans support a national ban on data centers. The public seems to agree that data centers are giant, ugly, noisy, smelly altars to industrial-scale hostile architecture. In our virulently partisan country, this constitutes a rare show of consensus.
> TLDR: Corrupt crooks have sabotaged the normal careful legal-compromise route, so they are partly to blame when American communities seek hard-line measures instead.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49193606
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
Sure we do. We just don't use those mechanisms because the law doesn't move fast enough. That 7/2027 deadline was probably calculated as being not worth it to pursue legal damages for since court fights work slowly.
Now closing up those "stalling" loopholes... I don't know enough about the justice system to really make a judgement call on that.
Do we punish other crimes?
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.
From everything I've seen the populist uprising is happening because 99% of the people shouting don't know anything about data centers other than "bad".
Comments that people don't like, which are clearly not just "spam" get flagged all the time. It's ridiculous
>xAI Ignores Laws And Profits: Rules For Thee, Not For Me
To what it is now, as if this is just healthy competition.
Taxi Pendants? Never heard of her
- Uber/Lyft
Gambling laws? Pssht
- Polymarkets
You realize there are fully autonomous waymo cabs operating at "level 4" in several regions... today. Anybody can download the app and ride in them now.
Google didn't go around promising this "next year" every year for the last decade. They just went out and did the work to make the product work, and released it.
Are you trying to invent your own definition for self driving and quibble that supervision negates what the car is doing?
Starlink v3 satelites launch next month, the first starmind sats based nvidia chips sometime next year, large new factories for the needed solar panels are already half built outside of bastrop texas
I don't like Grok or xAI. Or X. Or Twitter before.
I also don't like articles that try to bias readers with irrelevant details:
> This includes Grok, which has thus far been involved in controversies including but not limited to:
> Spreading antisemitic slurs and conspiracies while calling itself "Mecha-Hitler"
> Creating widespread non-consensual nude images of primarily women and children
> Acting as a mouthpiece for Elon's racist belief in South African white genocide
I stopped reading right there.
And yeah, on some level it's not strictly relevant to the exact legal question being discussed, but part of the purpose of an article is to give you reasons to give a shit about what's being reported.
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?
> 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.
It's like criticizing Stallman's hygiene. Who cares?
That is an example of ignoring laws and regulations. So that is certainly relevant as context to the current case where the company is ignoring laws and regulations.
I mean, that's the good faith argument anyways. I suspect you don't actually care, and just also believe in South African white genocide etc.
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).
Within your metaphor, the person I'm replying to would say "I did nothing to stop the land theft because I found it annoying how people made irrelevant arguments about what the land would be used for". Really calls into question if their real position is what they say it is.