Mark Zuckerberg is doing to AI datacentres what Elon Musk did to Tesla
Facebook's parent company,
Meta
, is reportedly constructing some of its new AI data centres inside tents. This move allows the social media giant to rapidly expand capacity at its existing data centre campuses. The strategy essentially mirrors an approach taken by Elon Musk's Tesla in 2018. At that time, Tesla built a new Model 3 assembly line in just two weeks within a large tent outside its main factory. This quick setup significantly increased the car's production, with the tented area reportedly contributing to 20% of all Model 3s produced that week.
According to a report by Business Insider, a company spokesperson, while confirming the news, has emphasised that the entire "supercluster" facility isn't solely tent-based. This comes days after company CEO
Mark Zuckerberg
announced that the company will spend tens and millions of dollars for several multi-gigawatt superclusters to ramp up its compute power.
What these tent-based data centres mean for Mark Zuckerberg's AI plans
These structures will provide Meta the necessary push in quickly deploying additional AI computing power. Data centres contain complex and expensive equipment that requires precise temperature control to prevent overheating. Building parts of these facilities in tents suggests a prioritisation of speed over traditional construction methods, the report noted.
According to SemiAnalysis (via Business Insider), Meta's embrace of this "speed above all else" data centre design is "inspired by xAI's unprecedented time-to-market." The report added that Meta is already building more such facilities, a development that will likely surprise traditional data centre and real estate investors.
SemiAnalysis, however, highlighted the use of 'prefabricated power and cooling modules' and 'ultra-light structures' to prioritise speed. However, operating data centres in tents presents challenges, particularly regarding heat. Tents can get very hot, potentially forcing Meta to temporarily shut down workloads during peak summer temperatures.
As per SemiAnalysis CEO Dylan Patel, while Meta will likely build permanent data centres in the long term, the company needs these facilities operational 'as soon as possible' in the short and medium term. He added that 'everyone is trying to build data centres as fast as possible in the race to achieve AGI,' and Meta is using tents to 'reduce construction bottlenecks' related to power, data center capacity, and construction crews.
AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Jury orders Tesla to pay more than $240 million in Autopilot crash case
AP FILE - A Tesla level three Electric vehicle charger is visible, Feb. 2, 2024, in Kennesaw, Ga., near Atlanta. A Miami jury decided that Elon Musk's car company Tesla was partly responsible for a deadly crash in Florida involving its Autopilot driver assist technology and must pay the victims more than $240 million in damages. The federal jury held that Tesla bore significant responsibility because its technology failed and that not all the blame can be put on a reckless driver, even one who admitted he was distracted by his cellphone before hitting a young couple out gazing at the stars. The decision comes as Musk seeks to convince Americans his cars are safe enough to drive on their own as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months. The decision ends a four-year-long case remarkable not just in its outcome, but that it even made it to trial. Many similar cases against Tesla have been dismissed and, when that didn't happen, settled by the company to avoid the spotlight of a trial. "This will open the floodgates," said Miguel Custodio, a car crash lawyer not involved in the Tesla case. "It will embolden a lot of people to come to court." The case also included startling charges by lawyers for the family of the deceased, 22-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon, and for her injured boyfriend, Dillon Angulo. They claimed Tesla either hid or lost key evidence, including data and video recorded seconds before the accident. Tesla said it made a mistake after being shown the evidence and honestly hadn't thought it was there. "We finally learned what happened that night, that the car was actually defective," said Benavides' sister, Neima Benavides. "Justice was achieved." Tesla has previously faced criticism that it is slow to cough up crucial data by relatives of other victims in Tesla crashes, accusations that the car company has denied. In this case, the plaintiffs showed Tesla had the evidence all along, despite its repeated denials, by hiring a forensic data expert who dug it up. "Today's verdict is wrong," Tesla said in a statement, "and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement lifesaving technology," They said the plaintiffs concocted a story "blaming the car when the driver - from day one - admitted and accepted responsibility." In addition to a punitive award of $200 million, the jury said Tesla must also pay $43 million of a total $129 million in compensatory damages for the crash, bringing the total borne by the company to $243 million. "It's a big number that will send shock waves to others in the industry," said financial analyst Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities. "It's not a good day for Tesla." Tesla said it will appeal. Even if that fails, the company says it will end up paying far less than what the jury decided because of a pre-trial agreement that limits punitive damages to three times Tesla's compensatory damages. Translation: $172 million, not $243 million. But the plaintiff says their deal was based on a multiple of all compensatory damages, not just Tesla's, and the figure the jury awarded is the one the company will have to pay. It's not clear how much of a hit to Tesla's reputation for safety the verdict in the Miami case will make. Tesla has vastly improved its technology since the crash on a dark, rural road in Key Largo, Florida, in 2019. But the issue of trust generally in the company came up several times in the case, including in closing arguments Thursday. The plaintiffs' lead lawyer, Brett Schreiber, said Tesla's decision to even use the term Autopilot showed it was willing to mislead people and take big risks with their lives because the system only helps drivers with lane changes, slowing a car and other tasks, falling far short of driving the car itself. Schreiber said other automakers use terms like "driver assist" and "copilot" to make sure drivers don't rely too much on the technology. "Words matter," Schreiber said. "And if someone is playing fast and lose with words, they're playing fast and lose with information and facts." Schreiber acknowledged that the driver, George McGee, was negligent when he blew through flashing lights, a stop sign and a T-intersection at 62 miles an hour before slamming into a Chevrolet Tahoe that the couple had parked to get a look at the stars. The Tahoe spun around so hard it was able to launch Benavides 75 feet through the air into nearby woods, where her body was later found. It also left Angulo, who walked into the courtroom Friday with a limp and cushion to sit on, with broken bones and a traumatic brain injury. But Schreiber said Tesla was at fault nonetheless. He said Tesla allowed drivers to act recklessly by not disengaging the Autopilot as soon as they begin to show signs of distraction and by allowing them to use the system on smaller roads that it was not designed for, like the one McGee was driving on. "I trusted the technology too much," said McGee at one point in his testimony. "I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes." The lead defence lawyer in the Miami case, Joel Smith, countered that Tesla warns drivers that they must keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel, yet McGee chose not to do that while he looked for a dropped cellphone, adding to the danger by speeding. Noting that McGee had gone through the same intersection 30 or 40 times previously and hadn't crashed during any of those trips, Smith said that isolated the cause to one thing alone: "The cause is that he dropped his cellphone." The auto industry has been watching the case closely because a finding of Tesla's liability despite a driver's admission of reckless behaviour would pose significant legal risks for every company as they develop cars that increasingly drive themselves.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Jury orders Tesla to pay more than $240 million in Autopilot crash case
A Miami jury decided that Elon Musk 's car company Tesla was partly responsible for a deadly crash in Florida involving its Autopilot driver assist technology and must pay the victims more than $240 million in damages. The federal jury held that Tesla bore significant responsibility because its technology failed and that not all the blame can be put on a reckless driver, even one who admitted he was distracted by his cellphone before hitting a young couple out gazing at the stars. The decision comes as Musk seeks to convince Americans his cars are safe enough to drive on their own as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Artificial Intelligence others Cybersecurity Project Management Others Finance Digital Marketing MCA Degree Design Thinking Data Analytics MBA CXO Healthcare Technology Data Science Operations Management Data Science healthcare Public Policy PGDM Leadership Product Management Management Skills you'll gain: Duration: 7 Months S P Jain Institute of Management and Research CERT-SPJIMR Exec Cert Prog in AI for Biz India Starts on undefined Get Details The decision ends a four-year-long case remarkable not just in its outcome, but that it even made it to trial. Many similar cases against Tesla have been dismissed and, when that didn't happen, settled by the company to avoid the spotlight of a trial. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like These Are The Most Beautiful Women In The World Undo "This will open the floodgates," said Miguel Custodio, a car crash lawyer not involved in the Tesla case. "It will embolden a lot of people to come to court." The case also included startling charges by lawyers for the family of the deceased, 22-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon, and for her injured boyfriend, Dillon Angulo . They claimed Tesla either hid or lost key evidence, including data and video recorded seconds before the accident. Tesla said it made a mistake after being shown the evidence and honestly hadn't thought it was there. Live Events "We finally learned what happened that night, that the car was actually defective," said Benavides' sister, Neima Benavides. "Justice was achieved." Tesla has previously faced criticism that it is slow to cough up crucial data by relatives of other victims in Tesla crashes, accusations that the car company has denied. In this case, the plaintiffs showed Tesla had the evidence all along, despite its repeated denials, by hiring a forensic data expert who dug it up. "Today's verdict is wrong," Tesla said in a statement, "and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement lifesaving technology," They said the plaintiffs concocted a story "blaming the car when the driver - from day one - admitted and accepted responsibility." In addition to a punitive award of $200 million, the jury said Tesla must also pay $43 million of a total $129 million in compensatory damages for the crash, bringing the total borne by the company to $243 million. "It's a big number that will send shock waves to others in the industry," said financial analyst Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities . "It's not a good day for Tesla." Tesla said it will appeal. Even if that fails, the company says it will end up paying far less than what the jury decided because of a pre-trial agreement that limits punitive damages to three times Tesla's compensatory damages. Translation: $172 million, not $243 million. But the plaintiff says their deal was based on a multiple of all compensatory damages, not just Tesla's, and the figure the jury awarded is the one the company will have to pay. It's not clear how much of a hit to Tesla's reputation for safety the verdict in the Miami case will make. Tesla has vastly improved its technology since the crash on a dark, rural road in Key Largo, Florida, in 2019. But the issue of trust generally in the company came up several times in the case, including in closing arguments Thursday. The plaintiffs' lead lawyer, Brett Schreiber, said Tesla's decision to even use the term Autopilot showed it was willing to mislead people and take big risks with their lives because the system only helps drivers with lane changes, slowing a car and other tasks, falling far short of driving the car itself. Schreiber said other automakers use terms like "driver assist" and "copilot" to make sure drivers don't rely too much on the technology. "Words matter," Schreiber said. "And if someone is playing fast and lose with words, they're playing fast and lose with information and facts." Schreiber acknowledged that the driver, George McGee, was negligent when he blew through flashing lights, a stop sign and a T-intersection at 62 miles an hour before slamming into a Chevrolet Tahoe that the couple had parked to get a look at the stars. The Tahoe spun around so hard it was able to launch Benavides 75 feet through the air into nearby woods, where her body was later found. It also left Angulo, who walked into the courtroom Friday with a limp and cushion to sit on, with broken bones and a traumatic brain injury. But Schreiber said Tesla was at fault nonetheless. He said Tesla allowed drivers to act recklessly by not disengaging the Autopilot as soon as they begin to show signs of distraction and by allowing them to use the system on smaller roads that it was not designed for, like the one McGee was driving on. "I trusted the technology too much," said McGee at one point in his testimony. "I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes." The lead defence lawyer in the Miami case, Joel Smith, countered that Tesla warns drivers that they must keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel, yet McGee chose not to do that while he looked for a dropped cellphone, adding to the danger by speeding. Noting that McGee had gone through the same intersection 30 or 40 times previously and hadn't crashed during any of those trips, Smith said that isolated the cause to one thing alone: "The cause is that he dropped his cellphone." The auto industry has been watching the case closely because a finding of Tesla's liability despite a driver's admission of reckless behaviour would pose significant legal risks for every company as they develop cars that increasingly drive themselves.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Tesla ordered by Florida jury to pay $243 million in fatal Autopilot crash
A Florida jury on Friday found Tesla liable to pay $243 million to victims of a 2019 fatal crash of an Autopilot-equipped Model S, a verdict that could encourage more legal action against Elon Musk's electric vehicle company. The verdict is a rare win for victims of accidents involving Autopilot. Mr. Musk has been pushing to rapidly expand Tesla's recently launched robotaxi business based on an advanced version of its driver assistance software. Tesla shares fell 1.8% on Friday (August 1, 2025), and are down 25% this year. Jurors in Miami federal court awarded the estate of Naibel Benavides Leon, as well as her former boyfriend Dillon Angulo, $129 million in compensatory damages plus $200 million in punitive damages, according to a verdict sheet. Tesla was held liable for 33% of the compensatory damages, or $42.6 million. Jurors found the driver George McGee liable for 67%, but he was not a defendant and will not have to pay his share. "Tesla designed Autopilot only for controlled-access highways yet deliberately chose not to restrict drivers from using it elsewhere, alongside Elon Musk telling the world Autopilot drove better than humans," Brett Schreiber, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. "Today's verdict represents justice for Naibel's tragic death and Dillon's lifelong injuries," he added. Tesla said it will appeal. "Today's verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardise Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology," the company said. The plaintiffs had sought $345 million of damages. Their lawyers said the trial was the first involving the wrongful death of a third party resulting from Autopilot. IMPACT ON FUTURE CASES Tesla has faced many similar lawsuits over its vehicles' self-driving capabilities, but they have been resolved or dismissed without getting to trial. In June, a judge rejected Tesla's bid to dismiss the Florida case. Experts said Friday's verdict may spur more lawsuits, and could make future settlements more costly. "It's a big deal," said Alex Lemann, a law professor at Marquette University. "This is the first time that Tesla has been hit with a judgment in one of the many, many fatalities that have happened as a result of its Autopilot technology." The verdict could also impede efforts by Mr. Musk, the world's richest person, to convince investors that Tesla can become a leader in so-called autonomous driving for private vehicles as well as robotaxis it plans to start producing next year. As Tesla's electric vehicle sales fall, much of its nearly $1 trillion market value hinges on Mr. Musk's ability to pivot the company into robotics and artificial intelligence. DRIVER'S ROLE The trial concerned an April 25, 2019 incident where George McGee drove his 2019 Model S at about 62 mph (100 kph) through an intersection into the victims' parked Chevrolet Tahoe as they were standing beside it on a shoulder. Mr. McGee had reached down to pick up a cellphone he dropped on his car's floorboard and allegedly received no alerts as he ran a stop sign and stop light before hitting the victims' SUV. Benavides Leon was allegedly thrown 75 feet (23 metres) to her death, while Angulo suffered serious injuries. "We have a driver who was acting less than perfectly, and yet the jury still found Tesla contributed to the crash," said Philip Koopman, a Carnegie Mellon University engineering professor and expert in autonomous technology. "The only way the jury could have possibly ruled against Tesla was by finding a defect with the Autopilot software," he added. "That's a big deal." Tesla, in its statement, said Mr. McGee was entirely at fault. "To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash," the company said. "This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs' lawyers blaming the car when the driver - from day one - admitted and accepted responsibility."
