It’s a small pleasure, but receiving an “I Voted” sticker after casting my ballot is one of my favorite parts of the whole voting process. I slap the sticker on my chest and spend the rest of the day feeling like I accomplished a little something. I participated in democracy and everyone who sees me will know it. Artificial intelligence robbed me of that small joy this year and replaced it with a small horror. My “I Voted” sticker is AI-generated slop. 

Getting a little sticker when you vote has been a tradition in the US since the 1980s. It’s a symbol of the election cycle. People take selfies and post them or share them with friends. It’s a celebration of democracy and a small way to pressure people into going to the ballot box. 

The voting sticker has been subject to every kind of discourse imaginable. Are “I Voted” stickers worth the cost? Wondered Marketplace in 2020. A cemetery in New York has spent time and money tending to the grave of Susan B Anthony because voters coat it in stickers during voting season. In 2008, companies like Starbucks and Ben and Jerry’s ran afoul of election laws for offering free treats to people who showed their “I Voted” stickers.

It’s appropriate but depressing that I got an AI slop “I Voted” sticker in 2026, the year it feels like the mainstream began to reckon with AI.

My sticker is ugly. It’s a busy circular nightmare. “I Voted” is spelled out in small bronze text at the top of the ring. Bronze laurels encircle a bronze bald eagle that stretches atop the American flag. Below this is more text: “250 YEARS ANNIVERSARY” and "SEMIQUENCENTENNIAL.” Below that, another line reads — as best I can tell — “CEKEVPATIVG EDELDOA.” I assume this was meant to say “CELEBRATING FREEDOM," but whoever churned out this slop wasn’t using the latest models and the fine detail is lost.

I put the sticker on reluctantly, but I was not proud. I sent a photo of the offending sticker to journalist friends with my face cropped out. They immediately noticed it was AI-generated. I did not post my sticker online. I shared it with no one else. My democratic joy turned to shame.

A few hours later, a friend sent me a selfie. He’d just left the voting booth. His sticker was beautiful, tasteful, a testament to the subtle art of the “I Voted” sticker. A red ring enclosed a blue field. The crescent and palmetto (symbols of South Carolina) sat elegantly behind a bold white “I VOTED.”

His sticker catches the eye. Passers-by will know exactly what the sticker says. They know he voted. Anyone looking at my sticker will wonder how I spilled some bronze paint on my chest. I trembled with indignation. One town over from me they’re giving out the good stickers and I’m stuck with slop. First my town of 12,000 installs 33 Flock cameras and now this? 

I spent some time scrolling through social media to see other “I Voted” stickers. So many are so beautiful. Michigan runs a contest where students can submit their own idea for a sticker and the state will print up the winners. Kentucky, Albany, and several other places around the country do the same. Louisiana commissions local artists to produce gorgeous stickers. My mouth hung up in a jealous scowl as I stared at pictures of New Orleanians bedecked with a sticker showing a hand drawn trumpet blasting out “I Voted” alongside Mardi Gras beads.

Only Denton, Texas (another place I’ve lived, weirdly) seems to also have AI-generated slop stickers. Denton’s sticker is, at least, personalized. The city’s court house is in the corner looking more or less correct. The “I Voted” is large and centered in the sticker itself. Like mine, the image is too busy. Too much text, too many fireworks, and the inclusion of the Liberty Bell clutters the whole thing up. The central message — “I Voted” — is bright white. It doesn’t sink into a busy bronze soup like on my sticker.

Complaining about AI-slop “I Voted” stickers may seem trivial in a world where AIs are choosing targets in warzones and vibecoders are reverse-engineering every piece of software ever written. But these little things are important. These small annoyances pile up until things like ChatGPT flyers are so ubiquitous that you don’t notice them anymore. The AI drive-thru works well enough and one day you stop worrying about it so much. You get an ugly AI slop “I Voted” sticker and you slap it on or toss it out. Enough of these build up until you don’t notice that AI all around you. And then, one day, it’s all normal.

Right now we’re figuring out where our AI lines are. Society is negotiating what the future will look like. We’re fighting data centers, figuring out how to burn tokens to keep our bosses happy, and learning what we will and won’t abide.

Me? I draw the line at AI-generated “I Voted” stickers.

My ears perked up when I heard Apple’s new foldable phones were cracking. I licked my lips when the company announced it’s releasing a touch-screen laptop. This was a company that once charged $19 for a polishing cloth, asked $200 for a VESA mount, and sold $700 wheels for the Mac Pro. Now it’s borrowing tired ideas from its competitors and launching hardware its previous leaders rejected.

The once dominant company is struggling to find its feet in an AI-driven post-Tim Cook world. John Ternus is the new CEO — a 25 year veteran of the company with a track record of pushing harebrained hardware schemes like the much reviled Touch Bar and lawsuit inducing butterfly keyboard. 

With Ternus at the helm, I feel there’s a good chance Apple’s best days are behind it, that it will have to make do with less, that it’s déclassé. Apple, blindsided by AI and relying on crowdpleasing hardware gimmicks, is downwardly mobile. It’s in its slop era. The company that once asked consumers to “Think Different” is now releasing hardware that’s just like everything else on the market.

Apple is not adjusting to this new position well. AI boosters agree that Siri AI is awful. Apple HomeView is a $300 Apple Watch meant to replace the family hearth. The iPhone Duo has only been out for a few days and all people can talk about is the cracks, yet Ternus is on the cover of Time Magazine this week holding the folding iPhone Duo and staring at the camera. “The other examples in the world felt kind of cheap and crappy,” Ternus told Time. Many people holding cracked iPhone Duos this week are learning just what (not) cheap and crappy looks like.

Flailing from crackgate, Apple announced the launch of a touch-screen laptop, an idea Steve Jobs extensively tested and said “doesn’t work,” an idea Cook once compared to combining a toaster with a refrigerator. What’s next? What if the toaster-refigerator folded? Ternus has been trying to make an 18-inch foldable iPad happen for years. Maybe Apple will solve the screen cracking issues by then. Or maybe Ternus will continue to try to put a hat on a hat.

I have been waiting for this moment for more than a decade. I am relishing Apple’s recent trajectory more than I should. I confess I harbor a secret and petty grudge.

In 2010, when Apple released the iPhone 4 I was working as a floor manager at a Banana Republic in Dallas. I was interested in smart phones, of course, but Dallas is an expensive city and the iPhone was a luxury. I made do with my Motorola Razr. But the suit-wearing middle management retail psychopaths that were my coworkers saw my lack of an iPhone as a weakness. It was not, as they say now, On Brand.

I had started at the store in the stock room, working my way up to manage the backroom before ascending to a coveted position on the sales floor. The other managers made it clear that a Razr was a “backroom” phone and someone in a prominent position on the floor needed to be seen using an iPhone.

At first, I was not told to buy an iPhone. The message came in the form of subtle and not so subtle bullying deployed over weeks.

“Still using that old phone?” they’d say.“Didn’t you get a raise?” someone would ask a week later.

“Try not to use that thing on the sales floor,” one co-worker told me, pointing at my Razr. “We’re trying to project a certain image here.”

The social pressure had the opposite of its intended effect. I resisted. Eventually one of the friendlier managers pulled me aside. He told me that my colleagues thought it was weird that I didn't have an iPhone. He said I needed to buy one to fit in and he said the store could give me an advance on my paycheck to make it happen.

Ever the contrarian and pissed I was experiencing high school style bullying as a full grown adult, I threw in with Google instead. I got an HTC Dream. My coworkers weren’t happy, but they stopped bringing up the iPhone. 

I’ve been an Android user ever since and studiously avoided Apple products until I broke down a few years ago and bought a Macbook Air. Time heals all wounds and Windows laptops are garbage. I’d even been considering changing from Android to iPhone because the privacy features are more robust. I’ve never been averse to a fast food meal either and maybe I’m a little more comfortable with Apple now that the cracks are starting to show in the foldable phone.

Texas has shut down the web portal for its automated construction permit filing system and suspended construction permits of 17 data center projects. The change came after 404 Media reported that a group of Texans discovered the state had continued to issue construction permits related to data centers despite Governor Greg Abbott calling for a pause in September.

On Monday, the watchdog groups FracTracker Alliance and Public Citizen published reports detailing more than two dozen permits issued to Texas data center projects. On Tuesday, the website for STEERS – an application filing system for construction projects run by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) – returned a 404 error.

By Wednesday, the site had this message on it: “TCEQ’s electronic filing application used for automatic authorizations has been temporarily shut down to ensure all applications are reviewed by agency staff to determine if they are related to data centers.”

Before TCEQ shut the portal down, 404 Media viewed 17 different permits related to data center projects and saw that they’d been moved from “active” to “suspended” in the TCEQ central registry. 

“STEERS is a portal that TCEQ uses to rubber stamp construction approvals,” Sam Law, a researcher at FracTracker Alliance told 404 Media. “It seems like they forgot about it and the portal has been quietly issuing approvals since the governor’s order for a pause, including for OpenAI and Amazon this Monday and Tuesday.”

The 17 suspended permits are related to stormwater construction, an approval that allows construction companies to raise and level ground. It’s a key, and sometimes final, part of the approval process for any construction project in Texas.

“Now they’ve taken the unprecedented step of suspending 17 approvals and taking down the whole site as they switch to a more involved human review process,” Law said. “The irony is not lost on me. When fighting the AI data centers build out, it’s nice to have a clear example of how some work is better left to humans.”

Law said he reached out to TCEQ and didn’t hear anything from them. The commission also didn’t respond to 404 Media’s request for comment. “I am very concerned that since contractors are accustomed to this automated approval process, they might not be aware of the suspension and continuing construction at some of the largest hyperscale facilities in Texas,” Law said.

The UN met this week to discuss, among other things, the threat of autonomous weapons.

“The technology is developing at a pace that is very concerning,” Laurent Gisel, the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross’s (ICRC) legal warfare team, told 404 Media. Gisel was in NYC this week to address the UN about all the things that are driving conflict across the planet. His prepared remarks include a statement on the illegal arms trade, nuclear weapons, mines, and – of course – AI.

Autonomous weapons have been a hot topic at the UN this year. In September, the UN attempted to pass a treaty that would govern the use of killer AI weapons. Diplomats from Russia and the US stripped it of its power. 

But the UN has pressed forward. On Tuesday, the international governing body announced a new initiative that would grapple with the issue. But, as Gisel said: “multilateral processes take quite some time” and  “we already see the effects on the battlefield.” 

AI is already picking targets and killing people. Gisel said the technology is “amplifying the destruction, amplifying the violation of the law, amplifying the humanitarian harm caused by conflicts.”

Israel used an AI powered by Microsoft to pick targets in Gaza. In Ukraine, AI-powered Russian drones are deciding which humans to kill. The United States military is pitching itself as an “AI-first” fighting force. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently announced Project Meridian, an initiative to guide the AI-powered autonomous weapons of the future. Three of Meridian's leads are Elon Musk, defense contractor Palmer Luckey, and Newt Gingrich.

For Gisel, one of the biggest dangers of AI is how fast it is. A core selling point for the tech is that it can help commanders make decisions faster. But that also accelerates the pace of mistakes. “Targets are created at higher speed and higher frequency, and are actually then prosecuted quicker, and with that give us great concerns in terms of the level of human control that is retained,” he said. “The human is supposed to remain in the loop.”

The human does not always remain in the loop. The Israel Defense Forces told journalists it did not thoroughly vet the kill lists generated by Lavender, the AI system it used to pick targets in Gaza. “It's known in the [civilian world] [...] that humans tend to trust the systems,” Gisel said. “That it's more the case when the humans are tired, when the humans are under stress, when the humans have to deliver quickly, and that's of course exactly the situation in which soldiers are in. So all of that gives us a lot of concerns in terms of retaining control on the use of force in armed conflict.”

AI boosters often pitch AI as an “easy button,” a way for people to brute force a complicated task and get it over with. But the consequences are much different when someone in Silicon  Valley is parsing spreadsheets or reverse engineering code  than when they’re prosecuting a war in the Middle East.

“That's something that the developers of those systems don't necessarily realize either, because some of those systems are developed by technological companies very far away from the battlefield, and they are not naturally all developed for battlefield use,” Gisel said.

International humanitarian law is an ever-evolving legal negotiation between world powers meant to limit the devastating effects of war. It’s imperfect and countries with vast armies like the US and Russia often do not abide by it. The ICRC, which Gisel represents, exists explicitly to shape these rules and laws. Some of the laws are old, far older than AI, but according to Gisel humanitarian law applies to “all weapons, means, and methods of warfare. Those of yesterday, those of today, and those of tomorrow.”

Beyond the opportunity to code humanitarian law into AI, Gisel said there should be new rules and regulations for the new technology. “Not to prohibit them all, but to prohibit specific categories of autonomous weapon systems and put specific restrictions on others,” he said.

"...Once the genie is out of the bottle, it's very, very much difficult to put it back in the bottle"

But he does have redlines. The first is any AI support system that removes a human being from the kill chain. “That requires specific limits and guardrails and restrictions from our perspective,” he said.

“The other type of autonomous weapon system that we recommend prohibiting is those that would target human beings directly, where the target profile is the human being, as opposed to a tank, weapon systems, or another typical military objective, and the reason why is based on ethical concerns, humanitarian concerns, and a moral line,” he added.

Autonomous weapons have existed for a long time. Some US warships have gatling guns that track and destroy incoming targets automatically. The difference is that those weapons track ships and missiles, not human beings.

According to Gisel, one problem with autonomous weapons that target humans or AI support systems that pick targets is that they’re unpredictable. He said banning unpredictable weapons should be a non-brainer. “Military discipline is about your forces [...] delivering the commander's intent,” he said. “If you have a weapon that is unpredictable in its effect, how can you deliver the commander's intent?”

But it’s been a sticking point in negotiations. “We would have thought, military considerations, would align. But actually, that has also faced quite some pushback. Strangely enough,” he said. He spoke about the negotiations in August and September from earlier in the year. “There were references in the last proposal by the chair of the group on precisely all those questions: that the autonomous weapon systems need to be reliable, explainable, understandable, and predictable. And all of that was taken out by some states.”

Gisel also opposes AI in nuclear command and control. In 1983, the Soviet Union’s early warning systems reported that the US had launched a nuclear weapon at the country. Soviet lieutenant colonel Stanislav Petrov decided the computer had made a mistake and decided not to report the attacks up the chain. He was right.

“States will continue to use satellite systems and therefore algorithms that go with those satellites,” he said. “But it's so important to ensure that it remains entirely under human control and a really meaningful human control.”

While the UN deliberates and the ICRC wrangles with how to regulate all this, the wars continue and military forces continue to embrace AI. “That's why it's urgent to have decisions being made by the international community on what to prohibit and what to restrict [...] once the genie is out of the bottle, it's very, very much difficult to put it back in the bottle,” he said.

Gisel said the world needs to act now. “Otherwise, it's the technology that will decide what is acceptable, and that's not the world we want to live in, right?”

A group of Texans believe they’ve discovered evidence that the state’s environmental regulatory agency has continued to issue permits to data centers despite Governor Greg Abbott’s call for it to stop. 

The nonprofits Public Citizen and FracTracker Alliance, working with local activists in Texas, looked through the public database of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and discovered that the organization has worked on multiple permits for data center projects since Abbott called for a pause in the process on September 21. Abbott’s office denied approving any new permits in a statement to 404 Media. 

According to Public Citizen and the FracTracker Alliance, which cite documents publicly available on the TCEQ’s website, the agency has reviewed documents and assigned engineers related to more than a dozen permits related to data center projects in the state. Public Citizen listed more than 15 and the Fractracker Alliance found 35. The same day the nonprofits announced their findings, The Texas Tribune published a report that Abbott had received $9 million in donations from developers and owners of data centers.

According to the documents reviewed by 404 Media, TCEQ issued air-emission limit certificates to a large data center in Houston; approved the construction of stormwater coverage for data centers in Abilene, Barstow, and Royse City; and fast tracked gas power plants for more than a dozen data center projects.

“The TCEQ’s own data indicates that it’s business as usual for data centers and affected communities were promised a freeze. And instead what they’re getting is another reason to distrust the TCEQ and ultimately ineffective attempts to govern by press release,” Kathryn Guerra of Public Citizen said during a press conference on Monday about the findings. “Absent any comprehensive guardrails imposed by the Texas legislature, the industry will continue to move forward as fast as it can, and the TCEQ may let it.”

"They're still putting in that power plant, and there ain't nothing me and my people can do about it. We're just going to have to keep that boot on our neck. It ain’t right.”

Texas is poised to be the data center capital of the world. Three hundred already operate in the state, 100 are under construction, and 200 more are being planned. The projects include Big Tech companies like Meta — which is constructing a $14 billion data center in El Paso — smaller scale local projects like one in Taylor that would be built on land meant for a public park, and massive startups like the nuclear-powered Fermi data center in Amarillo.

In general, people hate data centers and it’s become a major political issue for voters in Texas. On September 21, Abbott directed the TCEQ to “halt all permits sought by data centers.”  Abbott said he’d told the state’s water and electric utility agencies to audit all the projects and directed “the TCEQ to pause the issuance of all permits related to data center projects until [the Electric Reliability Council of Texas] completes its review.”

Abbott’s order is broad and data centers are large and complicated construction projects with a lot of moving parts that require dozens of permits and plans. It’s possible that some of the permits uncovered by the nonprofits were filed before Abbott’s September 21 pause.

Many, however, were clearly issued afterward. Twelve of the 14 applications for gas plants and generators were filed in October. TCEQ used an expedited review process for eight of them. One was an air permit for engines and turbines that would power a data center in the Dallas suburb of Irving, Texas. The builder submitted the permit for expedited review on October 6 and a TCEQ engineer completed the initial review two days later, according to publicly available documents reviewed by 404 Media.

“No permits have been approved,” Governor Abbot’s press secretary Andrew Mahaleris told 404 Media. “In line with the Governor’s directive, TCEQ has not taken and will not take any proactive actions related to the approval of data center permits. Likewise, no other state agency will approve data center-related permits until the Public Utility Commission, ERCOT, and the Water Development Board have the information they need to make informed decisions. Texans must come first.”

404 Media asked Abbott’s office why there are multiple data center related stormwater construction projects listed as “approved” and was told to talk to TCEQ. "The Commission has not issued any permits related to data centers and is complying with Governor Abbott’s directive," TCEQ told 404 Media.

Sam Law, a researcher and manager of communications at FracTracker Alliance, told 404 Media that TCEQ gave him “a more exacting interpretation of their own situation,” he said. “Which is that they are accepting applications, but not moving forward with reviewing them. That was shown to not be true.”

Law also noted that the stormwater construction permits that read as “approved” in the TCEQ system are the result of a regulatory loophole. “The state has just approved a generic construction stormwater permit, and then to get onto that permit, people file a notice of intent and then they add them to a pre-existing permit,” Law said.

The stormwater construction permit is required to raise and level ground. “It’s often the final approval needed to move forward to prepare the site to actually build the physical structure," he added. In areas where there’s no zoning restrictions or the city is unincorporated, then that permit is all a company needs to start building.

“The Caldwell Technology Park [...] the Stargate facility, and a bunch of other very large hyperscale facilities have gotten regulatory approvals in the form of this notice of intent, so it's not like a real pause,” he said.

Law said he believes Abbott is trying to project opposition to data centers without doing the real regulatory work. “If the point of the pause is to stop the sort of approvals of data centers, that's not what's been happening,” he said.

Multiple data center projects are underway in Abilene, Texas — including OpenAI’s Stargate project. According to TCEQ’s records, it issued a water quality permit for the Abilene data center on September 23. “We are, in fact, going to get a massive gas turbine plant right to people’s houses,” Abilene resident and Democratic state senate candidate Riley Rodriquez said during Public Citizen’s press conference.

Rodriquez said that residents had gotten letters from TCEQ about the incoming gas plant and how it might affect air quality in the region. The people of Abilene have fought and won the right to testify at upcoming public hearings. 

“At the end of the day they’re going to flip that switch. Doesn't matter what we have to say at that public hearing, and I know that is a doom and gloom way to look at this. But that's the fact,” Rodriquez said. “The fact of the matter is, we can go to that. We can have the best comments. We can have the best information [...] and I could have 500,000 people behind me, and it doesn't matter because they're going to flip that switch because they put the money on it anyways. And we got to live with that  — with those consequences.” 

Rodriquez said the people of the region found out about Stargate too late to do anything about it. “We're in a unique situation for us because we didn't have a chance to do any of the things that these great people are doing. We didn't have a chance to do any of that. ‘It was built, concrete's poured, generators are going in, boys. Sorry,’” he said.

“So Abbott made his announcement. That's really great, that's really awesome,” Rodriquez said. “Guess what? They're still putting in that power plant, and there ain't nothing me and my people can do about it. We're just going to have to keep that boot on our neck. It ain’t right.”

In his September 21 letter, Abbott said he’d ordered the pause because “the goal is to put Texans first.”

Update 10/19/26 at 8:20PM: This story has been updated to include a response from TCEQ.

Last week, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced the Pentagon would livestream the execution of convicted killer Nidal Hasan. Today, Trump said the execution would move forward but that it wouldn’t be livestreamed. But the propaganda damage is already done. Experts who watch terrorist spaces online told 404 Media that Hasan is already turning up in memes, videos, and recruitment material for groups like Al Qaeda.

Hasan—a former US Army Major who had once attempted to contact Al Qaeda—killed 13 people and injured 32 others at Fort Hood in 2009. He was shot and captured at the scene and later sentenced to death. Hegseth’s plan to livestream Hasan’s execution and the furor around it brought Hasan and his crimes back into the spotlight 17 years later. Hasan has mostly been a forgotten figure in Islamist and extremist circles, but is now once again a fixture of their propaganda.

“It's already started,” Moustafa Ayad, research chair in global Islamism and counter-terrorism at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, told 404 Media. “We're already seeing edited videos in support of Nidal Hasan, and they're specifically based around how he's a martyr and that his legacy lives on.”

In one image Ayad shared with 404 Media, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) referred to Hasan as a “heroic mujahid brother” then quoted Osama Bin Laden. “The day America makes this decision, it will have made a decision to execute whoever among you falls captive.” 

According to Ayad, an Al Qaeda affiliated propaganda group made Hasan the feature of its newsletter last Friday. “So it's being viewed in that sense already in these ecosystems as he is a hero, and it's going to be used for recruitment and potentially galvanizing inspiration,” Ayad said. “We're talking about a guy who hasn't really been referenced since 2017 really or that much at all. So it has reignited conversations around his attack, how quote unquote glorious it was, and is being used as a means to to recruit people in some shape or form, and will continue to do so.

Ayad also described "rampage" edits of Hasan that are floating around extremists circles online that show footage of Hasan dancing over a number that represents how many people he killed. “You have fed the wolves,” he said. “They now have a thing they can latch on to.” In one TikTok edit viewed by 404 Media, a picture of Hasan with laser eyes throbbed to the beat of electronic music.

He added that he thinks the memes and videos are being made by younger people. “I don't think an established guy who remembers the Nadal Hassan attack is going to then go: ‘You know what makes sense? Putting out a dancing Nidal Hasan over his kill count.’ I don't think some 35-year-old dude is doing that,” he said. “You have a younger generation that is now attuned to what he did.”

Livestreaming the public execution would have given propagandists more to work with. Online nihilists, gore groups, and Islamists often use footage of death and violence to lure in young people. “Dead ideologues are continually being revered, lionized in ecosystems in support of  groups like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, or any terrorist group,” Ayad said. “If you look at the saint ecosystems around accelerationism, it's a similar thing in which these individuals are the vanguard of jihad.”

Mass shooters and ideological killers that receive widespread media attention become objects of fascination online. They enter a cannon of sainted killers, totems that inspire others to commit the same acts. Some researchers have suggested news agencies should report a shooter’s crimes but refrain from naming and showing them, thus depriving them of notoriety and stemming the social contagion.

Hasan killed people almost twenty years ago and he was destined to fall out of memory until Hegseth attempted to make a spectacle of his death. “We’re already seeing it being incorporated into talking points, we’re past that,” Ayad said.

“He is still going to be labeled a martyr," Ayad added. “Will it be a public spectacle? Not anymore [...] but terror groups and their supporters took advantage of the news to highlight just how much of a contribution Nidal Hasan made to their respective movements.”

Ukrainian drones hit Russia’s largest data center on Wednesday. This was Ukraine’s fourth strike on Russian data centers in the past week and confirmation of a new reality of war: data centers are valuable enemy assets and they will be targeted.

In 2006, British economist Clive Humby declared “data is the new oil,” and big tech adopted the metaphor. Twenty years later, a dark side of the truism has been revealed. If the places where oil is refined are valuable targets in a war then so, too, are the places where data is refined. We’ve seen this not just in the Russia-Ukraine war, but also with Iran hitting Amazon Web Services data centers in Dubai in retaliation for America’s strikes on the country. 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy confirmed strikes on Russian data centers and oil refineries in a post on X and called them a “symmetrical response" to Russian aggression. Here we have oil and data together again, not as a metaphor in an economics lecture, but in the pronouncement of a world leader defending his country. conducting a war.

Three of Ukraine’s strikes hit data centers that belonged to Yandex, Russia’s Google-equivalent, and damaged the company’s supercomputers that housed some of its AI models. The latest attack hit a data center operated by Sberbank, Russia’s largest bank. It’s too early to tell what the effects of the strike on the Sberbank data center will be, but the three strikes on Yandex have disrupted internet and communications across Russia.

An online rumor said that the strikes on Yandex had the effect of taking down Russian bot farms, but this wasn’t true. The effects of the strikes on the civilian population were much more severe. Yandex is ubiquitous in Russia — it has its own app store, payment services, dating services, taxi and bus apps, and email services. The company operates six data centers in Russia and the strikes knocked two of them offline completely. People in Russia have lost access to their email, some of their data is seemingly gone, and taxi and bus apps only work intermittently.

ChrisO_wiki, an anonymous researcher who translates Russian social media posts for the western web, chronicled how the Yandex outages are hitting everyday Russians. “A taxi driver from Yekaterinburg says that after the service disruptions, he can no longer view his order history, and the status of trips is updated with a delay,” ChrisO_wiki said in a post on X and Bluesky. 

“The loss of Yandex's cloud services is also having severe impacts on Russian commercial logistics. Those who work with electronic document management are unable to register incoming goods, severely affecting manufacturers and distributors,” they said in another post.

These attacks are just the latest in a long line of strikes on data centers this year. Russia has been targeting Ukrainian data centers for months and Iran hit AWS data centers in Dubai in March, knocking out digital infrastructure in the Middle East.

Klaudia Klonowska, a researcher who studies the effects of emerging technologies on international law, told 404 Media that attacks on data centers are so new that international law around them is still developing. “You have very limited situations in which they would actually qualify as lawful targets when they're used by the military, and even then, it's very difficult for the attackers to know whether that's happening or not,” Klonowska said.

If the data centers are purely processing military data, then they could be legitimate targets, according to Klonowska. But many, if not most, data centers are dual-use, meaning they house both civilian and military data. In many cases, disrupting daily life seems to be part of the point.

When Russia struck data centers in Ukraine in September, state-backed news agencies claimed it hosted data for Palantir that supported Ukrainian intelligence efforts and was a lawful target. Ukraine denied the allegation. “So you see how difficult, because of the nature of these centers, it's really to pinpoint what is happening with them and who is using them and for what means,” Klonowska said. “Sometimes [Ukraine] mentions that these data centers contribute to Moscow's revenues that then fuel the war machine. But that's not enough to make them lawful targets. Retaliation is not enough under law.”

Klonowska noted that it is civilians who suffer most, not the military, when data centers go offline. “There are questions about proportionality given how widespread the attacks are,” she said. “A lack of internet access for very prolonged periods affects everything. It's all of the civilian services that are being disrupted, which you can imagine also includes things like hospitals, traffic, judicial services, etc. etc.” It’s worth noting that Russia has repeatedly attacked civilian targets in Ukraine, including apartment buildings, public transportation, and hospitals.

According to Klonowska, international and humanitarian law needs to catch up with the issue and that scholars like herself are only just starting to understand the ramifications. “I think there's also another bigger question behind all of this,” she said. “Why have we gotten to the point where we have permitted militaries of various states to use civilian commercial data centers for their military purposes? By potentially using them and relying on them, they have opened them up to the possibility of becoming military targets.”

Disentangling civilian and military data probably won’t take data centers off the target list, but it will make international law more clear on which buildings are legitimate targets. It may also change how data centers processing military data are built. 

“France has recently announced that they have unveiled their underground data center on the outskirts of Paris that will be exclusively for military use,” Klonowska said. “Just as we expect them not to use schools or hospitals or other civilian residential areas to host weapons or other military equipment, we would, I think, increasingly need to mention this in the case of data centers.”

The idea that a data center might be a military target is not lost on the American communities facing construction of them in their backyards. America’s nuclear weapons scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) have partnered with the University of Michigan in an attempt to build a data center in Ypsilanti Township, Michigan. The people and government of the Township aren’t thrilled about it for a number of reasons and the city attorney has said that the data center would be a “high value target” in wars of the future. Los Alamos pushed back on this in a letter to the community in September, around the same time Russia was striking data centers in Ukraine. LANL accused the township attorney of creating “that terminology without basis. It should not be interpreted as evidence of a known, specific, or imminent threat to the facility or the surrounding community,” the letter said. 

“Like other major research facilities, the center would employ appropriate security measures, including controlled access, cameras, and on-site security personnel,” it said. “Los Alamos and U-M would coordinate with local, state, and federal partners on matters related to safety and security.”

It’s easy to see where the people of Ypsilanti Township are coming from. When Ukraine struck three Yandex data centers in Russia over the weekend, its drones slipped past Russia’s air defenses. The idea that a town next to a data center, especially one with ties to America’s nuclear weapons programs, could sustain damage if the data center was ever attacked isn’t unfounded. The data centers smoldering in the world’s war zones proved that the township’s fears aren’t theoretical.

This article was produced in collaboration with Court Watch, an independent outlet that unearths overlooked court records. Subscribe to them here.

The “security protocols” on a Tesla stopped a Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agent from placing a tracking device on it, according to a warrant reviewed by 404 Media.

An Iowa man has kicked off controversy over religious freedom in the small town of Ottumwa, Iowa by opening a city council meeting with a prayer to Satan, which then kicked off a debate about the proper time in the meeting agenda to undo the “curse.” 

A man convicted of manslaughter in Arizona will be resentenced because an AI-generated video of his victim speaking from beyond the grave was ruled to have carried “undue emotional weight” as an impact statement. An appellate court in Arizona ruled that the manslaughter charge will remain, but the judge must reconsider the length of the man’s prison term because of AI.

In 2021, Gabriel Horcasitas shot and killed Christopher Pelkey during a road rage incident. A jury found him guilty of manslaughter. During Horcasitas’ sentencing hearing, Pelkey’s sister Stacey Wales played an AI-generated video of her brother as part of her victim’s impact statement. In the video, which she scripted with her own words that she made an AI generated likeness of Pelkey say, the AI avatar of Pelkey forgives his killer and said they “could have been friends” in another life. 

“I loved that video,” the judge said while handing down the maximum sentence of 10 and a half years.

Wales told 404 Media that her intent with the video was to sway the judge. “Isn’t that what you want human connection to be?” she said. “Do you ever come out of a movie and say: ‘Well, that was too emotional. That was too powerful. Human connection is powerful, and trying to convey that to somebody that's never known another person, this person on the earth, to convey their lifetime of 37 years down to a two-hour sentencing event is hard to do, and I think that victims and victims' families should be afforded every opportunity.”

After sentencing, Horcasitas appealed. He argued that the AI Pelkey video was inadmissible because it carried “undue emotional weight” and that the “lifelike AI recreation of the victim conveyed an authority and authenticity” had a “psychological impact” on the judge, according to court documents reviewed by 404 Media.

The appellate court agreed and cited State v. Rose, a 2007 murder case where a man was sentenced to death for the murder of a police officer. During the victim impact portion of the sentencing in that case, the judge saw photos of the police officer’s children at his graveside. The court said those photos almost crossed the line into prejudicing the judge.

“The AI video crossed that line. Unlike the photographs in Rose, which captured a particularly poignant moment for the young surviving victims, the AI video here [...] does not reflect actual events,” court documents said.

“It clearly impacted the sentencing judge, who said he ‘loved the video’ and felt it ‘was genuine,’ pointing to the AI victim’s ‘obvious forgiveness’ of Horcacistas,” the court documents said. “On this record, the judge’s consideration of the AI video so prejudiced Horcasitas as to render the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair.”

Wales and the rest of Pelkey’s family have spent the last five years in and out of various court rooms related to his death. If the current ruling holds, then she'll travel to Arizona from New York and give the same statement she did the first time through her brother’s AI-generated mouth, minus the AI-generated video. The same judge who originally said “I loved that video” will do the sentencing.

“Likely, the same people will go back down and make their speeches, and I will be making my victims' impact statement that I wrote for myself the first time around again, and I will be delivering Chris's AI script sentiment again,” she said. “If I need to stand there and read it myself, which would be legally lawful, I am prepared to do that. Chris's sentiment does not change. The delivery method will.”

Wales said she wrote the words that came out of the AI version of her brother, they weren’t AI-generated. She also noted that only the judge, her family, and the Horcacistas family were the only people who saw it during the trial. “This was not offered as evidence. Juries never saw this,” she said. “This was only created after a verdict was solidified, a guilty verdict.”

She also noted that the AI video was only one of a larger piece of testimony given that day. “I think that [the judge] is unfairly represented with a soundbite,” she said. According to Wales, the judge spoke for around half an hour and only mentioned the AI video once. Wales herself uploaded the soundbite from the judge saying he loved the AI-generated impact statement to YouTube, where it went viral.

But she also said she understood that AI is a new technology and when she played the AI-generated video of her brother that she was doing something no one else had done yet. She compared it to the way courts thought of photography in the late 19th century. 

“It took about 15 years [...] and about five landmark cases in the United States that went all the way up to the Supreme Court before photography was an accepted standard to be used in the courtroom for evidence, identification, and testimony, et cetera,” she said. “I believe that's what we're seeing now with AI. It is a brand new medium.”

Wales said she understood she was setting a precedent, for good and for bad, and that she was OK with that. “There is always that first case, and so that mantle weighs on me that I need to be careful with how I defend this and how I explain the impetus, the goals, the motivations, and the veracity of what was created, because there are victims that depend on freedom of speech for the future, and I do believe that victims and their families should have every opportunity available to them to make their their points,” she said.

There’s no firm date for the new sentencing. “We do respect the court's opinion, and if we need to operate in those guardrails, I am prepared to read the same script that the AI version of Chris read the first time around,” she said. “His sentiment has not changed. Our opinion of what we believed he would think about this whole thing has not changed. The words I penned as Chris's imagined opinion still have not changed and will not change.”

arXiv, an open-access repository where researchers publish preprint academic research, has announced it will rate limit submissions because it has been inundated with AI-written papers. A researcher can now only send in two pieces per calendar month and have a total of three active submissions at any given time. In a blog post about the change, arXiv said AI has made it too easy to spam the publisher’s inbox and its volunteer moderation team is overwhelmed.

“The heart of arXiv’s process for detecting and rejecting low-quality papers is our many volunteer moderators,” Thomas Dietterich, an Oregon State University professor emeritus and the chair of arXiv’s editorial advisory council said in a statement. “We are so grateful that they donate their time and expertise every day. However, a relatively small proportion of authors are submitting a large number of low-quality papers and consuming a disproportionate fraction of the moderators’ time. This is unfair to authors who continue to submit quality papers — their papers can be delayed for days or weeks as a result.”

According to arXiv, it received 9,869 submissions in September 2016, 20,569 submissions in September 2024, and 40,363 submissions in September 2026. Submissions on the site have doubled in the last two years and have sextupled in the computer science category.

AI is driving this surge in multiple ways. Researchers are using LLM to parse massive data sets, write code, and design portions of experiments; some are also using AI to write the papers. “arXiv policy permits authors to employ AI as a tool in support of their research as long as it is disclosed and the research meets arXiv’s standards of scholarly interest and advances the field of research,” arXiv said in its rate limiting blog. “However, many of the submissions that arXiv is now receiving do not satisfy these requirements.”

arXiv said it’s seen an increase in “thin papers of narrow scope” as well as salami papers — where researchers write multiple articles based on one study. “There is also a marked increase in dense, AI-written papers. AI tools are making it easy for authors to flood arXiv and other repositories with these low-value papers,” it said.

Rate limiting was already part of arXiv’s policy, but it was originally left to each individual moderator’s discretion. “This policy update strives to fairly distribute the incredibly valuable work of our volunteer moderators who check that submissions meet these standards,” the publisher said.

This new policy is another part of a long battle the publication is having with AI-powered slop and spam. A little less than a year ago, the archive stopped accepting review articles and position papers in the computer science category and cited low effort LLM-written articles as the reason. In January it started requiring new authors to receive an endorsement from an existing author in the system. Previously the publisher accepted an academic email address as the sole qualifier. In May, arXiv took things a step farther and said it would ban researchers who submitted AI slop from the site for a year.