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.

Some tech workers in San Francisco hooked up ChatGPT to a Toyota Corolla and got it to drive around a parking lot. This may not sound impressive in the age of the self-driving car until you realize that the LLM driving the car was a general purpose chatbot running on a laptop and not the purpose-built driving system based on millions of hours of training data used by Waymo or Tesla.

The people behind the stunt call themselves DrivingBench and they’ve posted their code, their prompts, and videos of the experiment online. In the experiment, DrivingBench hooked up GPT-6 Astra, Claude Fable 5.1, Grok 4.6, and GPT-5.6 Sol to a Toyota Corolla and gave the LLMs control over the car’s steering, accelerator, and brakes. Then they set up a small cone course in a public parking lot and prompted the chatbots to navigate the space.

The goal, they said, was to find out if untrained, off-the-shelf frontier AIs can drive a real car. The results were mixed. Grok, Sol, and Fable only drove a few meters and didn’t finish the course. GPT-6 Astra, however, did eventually learn to navigate the course and complete it. But not without a lot of troubleshooting.

DrivingBench is Aditya Ramabadran, Tobias Gessler, and Simon Mahns — three Bay Area tech workers who met at their day job at Axiom Math, an AI math startup. During a call with all three members of DrivingBench, Ramabadran told 404 Media that the idea for hooking up chatbots to a car happened when the three of them were hanging out at an ice cream shop one weekend. 

“This is after we saw a bunch of demos of Astra and models like Fable being able to do a lot of robotic things that LLMs can not do out of the box before, such as do a painting or move objects or even some 3D and Blender demos that showed a level of spatial reasoning we hadn’t seen from LLMs before,” he said. “We just thought: ‘Is there a way we can get LLMs to drive a car now?”

Why driving a car? To prove that it’s possible and, they said, to create a new benchmark for LLMs performing tasks in the real world. “The point wasn't to show that it's practical for you to plug ChatGPT into your car and have it drive you places. It's probably very unlikely that the labs have trained specifically for this or have IRL environments that involve both the models driving a real car,” Ramabadran said. “It would be pretty shocking, I think, for people to see that these models are good enough now that they can actually drive a vehicle in real life, even if it's just on some cone course at low speeds in a parking lot.”

After brainstorming at the ice cream shop, they decided to get a car and sent Gessler to rent a Toyota Corolla. They didn’t tell the rental car company they planned to hook chatbots up to the vehicle and drive it through an obstacle course. The team used Comma — an off-the-shelf system that allows users to install a self-driving system on unsupported cars — to get the car to communicate with a laptop running the LLMs. Comma had two cameras pointed at the road feeding data back to the Chatbot.

“It’s pretty easy to install. The Toyota Corolla is one of the most popular for this Comma kit, that’s why we chose it,” Gessler said. “The good thing about their system is that it’s open source [...] so it’s easy for us to go in and modify it because we need to hook up the car somehow to our LLMs.”

Comma looks like a dashcam.. Users attach it to their windshield and it continually watches the road, recording video, integrating with the car’s electrical systems and sensors, and providing a rudimentary kind of self-driving. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration announced an investigation into Comma last week after two car crashes involving the system killed three people.

For DrivingBench, Comma was an easy way to get their car talking to a chabot. “We had one person on the driver's seat with the laptop or a passenger seat prompting the LLM,” Gessler said. “And then the person who drives it has to press a button on the steering wheel to give the car the command to start, and then from there it's basically just monitoring the car and checking that the model doesn't crash into a wall or something.”

“And we have the foot over the brake, just in case,” Mahns cut in.

DrivingBench’s prompt is on its website and runs fewer than 600 words. “Your objective is to drive through the course (in a backwards-U-shaped parking lot) and stay between the cones,” the prompt said. “Your finish line is a wide "parking spot" marked by numerous BLUE mini-cones at the very end; finish by parking in this area. You will be evaluated primarily by how far you get in the course (without leaving the boundaries/collisions), but a secondary objective is to complete the course in less time.” The rest of the prompt is made up of specific instructions about the physical limitations of the Corolla and the parking lot.

The problems with the project started before the car had moved an inch. When the LLMs recognized the team had prompted them to drive a car, most refused. “Specifically with Astra, it would refuse to drive the car in a lot of situations and we would have to change our prompt and rename things through hours of iteration to get it to consistently drive the car,” Ramabadran said.

“We tried calling it a simulation, which worked like some percentage of the time, but then other times they would see the images and see, oh, ‘I'm in a real parking lot, these people are just lying to me,’” he said. “We ended up having to call everything a sandbox. And with that prompt, it's able to consistently drive the car and like never refuse to do that.”

Other problems were more pedestrian and led to delays which forced Gessler to extend the rental on the Corolla. Finding a parking lot held them up several times. “We went to high schools, churches, and community centers. We got kicked out a couple of times,” Mahns said. 

The first place to ask them to leave was a church. “Rightfully so. We just commandeered the entire parking lot and they had an event starting. So they were like: ‘Hey, you get permission to do this? And then we're like: ‘We can pack up right now,’” Mahns said.

They also got kicked out of the parking lot of an office building. “We took a corner and then a security guard was like: ‘Hey, you’re taking like one quarter of the parking lot. Do you have permission?’ And then we’re like: ‘Not really.’ So then we’d pack up. We didn’t try to cause any issues,” Mahns said.

“The people that kicked us out were super chill about it,” Ramabadran added.

Coding the software also slowed things down. The first time DrivingBench set out to do this, they vibe coded the bridging software between the LLMs and Comma. “A true and funny story is that we tried to get Astra to one shot some code and then it was pure slop. So we had to restart from a new design,” Mahns said, adding that this pointed to the limits of these frontier models. “It can’t just autonomously do this because it made thousands and thousands of lines of slop.” They said that Astra’s first attempt at writing the software created a 200,000 line repository.

Parking lots were scarce, the software was vibe coded, the chatbots fought the experiment, and only one of them completed the course. But Mahns is still excited about the results. “It's an interesting demonstration of potential emergent capabilities,” he said. “It can fail a turn, and then the next turn, next try, it will be able to do that turn and other turns that it hasn't seen before. Not necessarily saying LLMs are gonna put Waymo out of business or something, just an interesting demonstration of where things are, and things are just moving fast.”

Mahns added that these kinds of experiments are good because LLMs will increasingly affect things in the real world and not just on our screens. “Most people that are familiar with ChatGPT have used it in this white collar, kind of like in the computer, and it's definitely imminent to the point that this capability will start having more impact in the physical world,” he said. “So I think seeing the sparks of this happening, the shift of this utility coming into the physical world, is also somewhat exciting.”

Focusing on latency and testing high consequence tasks were key for Ramabadran. “These models [...] it can take like 20 seconds to think and give a response. And if you imagine, even if you're driving at like 2mph, which is like one meter per second, if you take 10 seconds to think, you've moved like 10 meters. And if you're driving 10 meters blind, that's pretty bad,” he said. “And I think it's cool that we have a benchmark where latency is part of the benchmark.”

The beta for the hotly anticipated World of Warcraft: Forever has been marred by fans of the streamer Asmongold who have filled the game’s public spaces with spam and slurs. To fix the issue, a player named Solastro created a mod called OlympusMute that hides any chats from players associated with Asmongold’s multiple associated guilds and fandom. Funnily enough, Solastro told 404 Media he used to be a big Asmongold fan too.

Last month Fort Worth, Texas police arrested political activist EJ Carrion a week after he cursed at a city council meeting. In his driveway, they told him the charge was “disrupting some kind of procession,” according to body cam footage of the arrest obtained by 404 Media.

Carrion was one of hundreds of Tarrant County residents who’d turned up for a Commissioner's Court meeting on August 4 to speak out against a plan to close a third of the area’s polling places. “You said you were all about cooling the temperature and yet you vote for this extremist bullshit. All of you are bullshit,” Carrion said during the meeting on August 4 before walking out the door.

A week later, Fort Worth Police pulled Carrion over in his driveway and arrested him.

“Why am I getting arrested?” Carrion asked?“So you have a warrant for disorderly conduct, disrupting a meeting. It’s from Tarrant County. I don’t have the details on it [...] it’s a misdemeanor warrant. We’ll take you to Tarrant County and you’ll see the judge and that’s it,” one of the officers said.

“Wait [...] see the judge?” Carrion said. “Guys [...] are you guys serious right now?”

“All it says for us is that you did have a warrant for your arrest from Tarrant County for a disorderly conduct for disrupting some type of procession. I’m not sure what the details are,” the police said.

“Because I disrupted a meeting [...] so because someone doesn’t like me, you’re arresting me? That’s what it sounds like,” Carrion said. “Because of fucking Tim O’Hare, it’s unbelievable.”

“Because of who?”

“Judge Tim O’Hare [...] he’s the biggest pussy,” Carrion said.

Judge Tim O’Hare is a county judge who presides over the Tarrant County Commission — one of the area’s ruling legislative bodies. Back in the August 4 meeting, O’Hare demanded police remove Carrion from the building. But Carrion was already leaving. “I’m walking out, small man,” Carrion said as he left.

As he was being arrested a week later, Carrion called a friend to tell him what was going on. “So, the judge put a warrant on you for getting kicked out of commissioner’s court?” The friend asked.“That’s what it sounds like,” Carrion said, his hands in cuffs while he sat in the back of a police car.

This is not the first time O’Hare has had people arrested for their behavior during public meetings. In 2025, O’Hare had two different people charged with Class A misdemeanors for clapping in support of someone’s speech during the public comment period of the meeting. On Monday, four women filed a federal lawsuit against O’Hare, claiming his tenure on the court has “created a culture of fear and chilled protected speech, cutting to the heart of the Constitution’s free speech and due process guarantees.” 

The Commission did, eventually, vote to reduce the number of polling places in the county. 

Mia Hyder had never attended a public meeting before when she showed up to the city council meeting in Springfield, Missouri. After briefly speaking at a podium during a public comment period, she was arrested and dragged away in handcuffs. 

“Hello, my name is Mylie Hyder. I’m a Springfield, Missouri constituent, and I’m here to oppose the usage of ALPR cameras, most commonly made by Flock Safety. These cameras are not just surveillance,” Hyder started.

“I’m sorry ma’am,”  Springfield Mayor Jeff Schrag said. Her mic was cut. A cop approached her at the podium.

Hyder held up both of her middle fingers while continuing to speak: “They are an invasion of our privacy,” she said.

The cop said, “You’re under arrest,” grabbed her arms, and pulled her out of the room. “I can do this all night. I get paid by the hour,” the cop added.

“Does this conclude the public hearing,” Schrag said. 

“Yes sir,” a council member responded. The meeting continued with a city employee talking about sidewalk code. 

Hyder was one of two people arrested in Springfield, Missouri on Monday during a city council meeting where tensions rose after the council stalled a review of the city’s Flock cameras.

Dozens of people showed up to the Springfield City Council Meeting on September 22 with plans to let city leaders know how they felt about the city’s use of automated license plate readers. There was a resolution before the council that would trigger a review of the controversial camera systems, but Schrag moved to send the resolution to committee and prevent public comment on the issue. 

The move passed 5 - 3, the crowd shouted at city leaders, and Schrag ordered citizens to clear the room and shut off cameras recording the event. As people left, police detained and ticketed Noah Powell. Later in the evening Mia Hyder tried to speak out about Flock during public comments about a housing issue. Police arrested her while Schrag looked on. “Sorry ma’m,” the mayor said as police led Hyder away in handcuffs.

Springfield has 41 Flock cameras, according to the Flock Transparency Portal. City councilor Brandon Jenson had proposed a resolution to “conduct a comprehensive review of all relevant contracts” related to the ALPR cameras. The council was set to vote on Jensons’ proposed review on Monday and hear comments from the community. But when the resolution came up during the meeting, Mayor Schrag immediately pushed to send it to a committee and avoid public comment.

Jenson spoke before the vote to push the resolution to a committee. “All I’m trying to do is get people answers to some real questions that they’ve brought to us for months. And it’s a shame that it comes to this sort of, I guess, theater that I’m a part of to try to get those answers,” he said. “This isn’t how government is supposed to run. It’s just disappointing. And we’re not even allowing folks to speak who clearly came out to share their voices tonight.”

When the council voted to send the bill to committee, someone in the crowd shouted “Bullshit!” Schrag tried to move on to the next agenda item, but the crowd booed and yelled. The mayor then paused the meeting, turned off the cameras, and cleared the room.

Police detained Powell, a freelance photographer in Springfield, as people filed out of the room. “I don’t have a lot of experience getting tickets or being detained,” Powell told 404 Media. “So this is kind of new for me.”

Footage obtained by 404 Media showed several people leaving the city council meeting and yelling at city leaders. Powell said he was the only person put in handcuffs, detained, and ticketed at that moment. The Springfield Police Department did not return 404 Media’s request for comment.

“Well, I said: ‘Jeff Schrag is a cuck.’ I said: ‘Fuck you Jeff.’ I said: ‘Worthless’ and then, also, the final thing I said was: ‘Jeff Schrag has a tiny, stinky, cock,’” Powell explained. “I just let myself get handcuffed and let them do whatever power trip they wanted to do. Got my ticket and left.”

Powell said he was only in handcuffs for five minutes. “They just wanted to put on a show,” he explained. Powell added that he planned to fight the charge in court. “I’ve already sought legal representation, so we’re going to see where it gets […] I don’t think I should have been put in cuffs. I read the law, the city ordinance, and it said that I should have just been asked to leave.”

Hyder told 404 Media that she’d just moved to the area and thought that the city council meeting would be a good place to get involved in the community. She said that she’d stayed behind when Schrag cleared the room earlier in the evening.“I don’t know why I stayed. I just felt like not staying was giving up,” she said. Hyder explained that she waited until the public comment period for a different issue, filled out a form to talk, and then got up to deliver a written statement about Flock cameras. She said she didn’t flip off the city council until she saw the police officer approaching.

“After I saw the police officer out of the corner of my eye and everyone was kind of yelling at me, and there was a lot of ruckus, that’s when I pulled out the double birds,” she said.

The police officer who arrested her said Hyder was being charged with disrupting the peace. He took her into the hallway outside of the meeting and held her in handcuffs for around five minutes before issuing her a ticket and letting her go.

Hyder told 404 Media she didn’t regret it. “I feel like being silent would have been like being complicit,” she said. “I felt like it was kind of stupid that I disturbed the peace. Okay, yeah, I did flip them off. That wasn’t a shining moment, but I did that when I was about to be arrested. When I knew my time was up.”

Hyder added she’d continue to attend city council meetings.

Flock Out SGF, a local group that’s lobbying against ALPRs in Springfield, told 404 Media that the resolution was meant as a compromise. “Many people came out to the council meeting and had carefully prepared statements for public comment, but no citizens were heard,” they said. “The two individuals who were arrested for voicing their concerns in the face of being silenced were not unreasonable, and we stand by their actions.”

Powell and Hyder are just the two latest American citizens detained or arrested this year for their behavior during a city council meeting. In February a farmer was arrested in Oklahoma for going over his time during a data center meeting. In Kansas, police arrested a high school teacher for clapping during public comments. In Texas, cops arrested a man in his driveway for public disturbance a week after he said “bullshit” during a county meeting.

Springfield did not return 404 Media’s request for comment.

Most people in the world who use AI feel good about the technology and believe it will be a net positive for the future, according to a new study from Gallup. This is not the case in the United States, however, which is one of the few countries surveyed where negative emotions towards AI outweigh the positive. 

The new survey from Gallup and Microsoft polled people in 37 different countries about AI. “The study, which will ultimately cover 140 countries, measures public engagement with AI across five dimensions. In addition to emotional response, the survey captures awareness, frequency of use, expected impact and trust,” the study said.

Most people polled — a median of 81% — were aware AI tools exist, but only a median of 43% used them daily. Gallup told 404 Media it defined a “daily user” as an employed person who used AI everyday for either work or personal reasons or an unemployed person who used the tech every day.

The study found that people had a mixed, but generally optimistic, view of artificial intelligence. “AI engagement can be viewed as an adoption ladder, moving from awareness to ever having used AI and then to more frequent use,” the survey said. Generally — but not always — the more someone used AI the more they trusted its results, the more positive they felt towards it, and the more they believed it would help make a better future.

Digging in, however, the results are more complicated. Some people who reported positive feelings towards AI also said they didn’t trust its results. “People may therefore see considerable potential in AI even while remaining uncertain about whether they can rely on the information it provides,” the survey said. 

Daily users tended to trust AI “to provide accurate information,” according to the study. “The survey cannot establish whether greater trust leads people to use AI more often, whether experience with AI builds trust, or both. But the strength and consistency of the relationship suggest that trust and adoption are connected.”

Globally, most people surveyed felt good about AI and expected to improve their country. As AI adoption increased in a country, so too did positive feelings. But not in the United States, which was one of only three countries surveyed where negative emotions towards AI outweighed the positive.

Pablo Diego-Rosell, a senior scientist at Gallup, told 404 Media that he’d seen similar results in other western countries. “The Netherlands, Canada, the U.K., New Zealand, Ireland and Malta all rank near the top in terms of worry,” he said. He noted that he hasn’t seen survey results from some of the bigger European countries like Germany and France but said that worrying about AI “appears to be a uniquely Western phenomenon.”

Gallup called this the “Paradox of the Worried West.”

“The biggest unanswered question is causality. We see a very strong relationship between frequent AI use, greater trust and lower worry, but we do not know which direction that relationship runs,” Diego-Rosell said. “Does experience with AI make people more comfortable with it, or are people who already trust AI simply more willing to use it?”

“There is also a broader question about what trust in AI actually means. In this study, we measure one specific dimension: whether people trust AI to provide accurate information,” he added. “But trust in AI can also involve whether people believe it is reliable, safe, fair, transparent, protective of privacy, and likely to act in ways that serve their interests.

The west didn’t have a monopoly on negative emotions towards AI, however. The other two countries where negative emotions towards the technology outweighed the positive were Egypt and Palestine.

“One possibility is that these results partly reflect the broader emotional context in which people are evaluating AI. When people are living in environments where worry, stress or other negative emotions are already elevated, some of that broader emotional climate may shape how they react to a technology like AI,” Diego-Rosell said. “At the same time, our data do not allow us to determine how much of the response is specific to AI versus the wider circumstances people are experiencing.”

It’s possible that people in the US, Egypt, and Palestine are already anxious and worried and that this is coloring their perception of AI. Israel is waging war on Palestine, settling in its territory, and using AI to pick targets to bomb in Gaza.

Americans — where much of AI is built and first deployed — have been repeatedly told in the past few months by AI evangelists and company insiders that the technology could, literally, end all life on Earth. The constant stream of news stories about AI swarms “breaking containment” while AI experts claim there’s a one in ten chance the technology kills everyone on the planet probably had a hand in altering the American mood.

“The broader story is that public engagement with AI is much more complicated than simply being ‘for’ or ‘against’ it,” Diego-Rosell said. “People who are aware of AI are more likely to expect it to help than harm, and positive emotions outweigh negative ones. At the same time, trust in AI’s accuracy is considerably lower than optimism about its potential, and worry remains widespread in some countries. So optimism, skepticism and concern can coexist.”