Oh Google. It was impressive as hell even without the fakery. Why soil your reputation that way?

I think what has happened is the bussiness majors and kinds of scientists who'd rather publish fake results than modest good results have taken over from the founders.

and with the heat from the servers concentrated conveniently you could consider what to recycle the heat for.

Examples might be chemical processes that need heat like desalination or conversion of methane to Syngas or making concrete or greenhouses and shrimp farms.

There's lots to this if the other practical of this don't sink it.

Lots of times, say at night, the wind blows but there's no demand for the electricity. You could store it in batteries but then you pay an efficiency cost of conversion into and out of the battery. If the battery isn't local to windmill or eventual use point you pay the transmission line cost. And the batteries have to be large ( expensive).

The servers convert the surplus electricity to useful products directly with no inherent inefficiency over any other server doing the job that is powered off the grid. So in that sense it's perfectly efficient. The data product is inexpensive to transport over Internet.

At times when the windmil is not producing power at all the data center could in principle be powered by sending power in the opposite direction back to the windmill site from the grid. You'd need a transformer there I suppose but not a new set of transmission lines. So lower maintainence and fixed costs for the power distribution system to the data center

But you do need a data product whose production can shut down when the windmill is producing power for the grid at max capacity. That's easily conceivable as computers can also be gridded around the world and their computations moved from center to center ( eg night on other side of planet ). Or you pick a data commodity that can be episodically produced. I shudder to mention Bitcoin but at least for the time being that's actually practical --- module your feelings about whether bitcoins wasteful work model makes sense. Another one would be high compute loads for jobs like designing proteins, scheduling airlines, training AI models, massive fluid dynamic simulations , weather modeling, etc.... and all sorts of scavenger computing jobs.

A bonus for this model is that you could build out wind power stations in advance of power demands ( like before you decommission your coal and nuke plants ) and have a use for them . If you built out enough excess capacity then you also solve one of the reasons we have these traditional plants -- the need to have enough power when winds are insufficient. With enough excess capacity and well geographically distributed then wind fluctuations won't ever need much base load backup power from coal

That's me new headline! Or should be

I use AI to help me code a lot. Not sure I like it. Very often leads me down dead ends. Or guides me into spending way too much time explaining. Or trying to cobble together incompatible pieces that were spit out at me. Or getting burned by bad information, out-of-date documentation, pseudo-code, etc.

I think a big problem in general is the way the AIs are presented, largely based on a Wikipedia model. The idea of "information" or explainers also infected, for example, Google, where instead of giving search results they try to fake their way through giving ANSWERS.

Same with AI. I feel like it should be seen (and present itself) with more of a "maybe you could try this...?" attitude? Or "some people seem to claim that..." etc. Or "what about maybe...?" Instead of posing as a know-it-all. In a lot of good stuff I read, the writer doesn't present themselves as an authority. And even the best authorities hedge with caveats and seem excited to get you thinking about *how* to approach things, rather than giving an ANSWER.

I think it's a version of mansplaining, mixed with marketing, mixed with hoodwinking. It betrays a set of VALUES (one's I don't hold), and makes the whole thing baldly IDEOLOGICAL. I doubt that this attitude naturally emerges from GPT training, I suspect it's finely-tuned (though maybe largely unconsciously).

It really is detrimental to the interfaces.

And where's the Golden Fleece?

Should we assume the name implies a bond between the mortal and the immortal . Or is it meant to imply it's the son of Zeus , king of the gods? Unlike the Christian gods. The Greek gods were not overly concern with humanity other than it being their plaything. "I'm gonna dress up as a goose and get me a woman tonight!" Was always good for a laugh on mount Olympus.

Why does this forever gimmick cause that end result?

God I want to puke every time I hear smirk d utter the content free buzz term "digital twin". The uttered is putting on airs trying to cos others with their up to date hipness. It's just a model

Where's your loyalty the company? You weren't using that part of your brain anyhow.

But if they paid you for it. Well that would be like gig work . Rent a brain. A mesh network of elastic brain servers.

Of course all the code they'd write would strangely resemble liesure suit Larry

It solves all the problems you name because it is explicitly not a hub motor.

It's a rethink of the CV joint. It's a new type of joint that decouples axial rotation from wheel movement just like a cv joint. However it has the virtue that it can have arbitrarily short linkages. A cv joint can't .

That's the innovation here. The motor is still fixmounted to the chassis. It has a flexible linkage so the wheel can freely move without moving the motor . But the distance bewtween the motor and the wheel can be short.

Julia has all these desired features save one. It's radically different in syntax and thought than python.

It should be surprising to anyone that a machine capable of "understanding" a query, formulating a topical reply, writing that in coherent English and forming many sentences and paragraphs that spool in a logical reasoned order could be contained in a trillion floats.
These things write responses better than most graduate students.
Now never mind accuracy or correctness. I'm just talking about it executing the thing that all past AI researchers and language modelers agreed was a unique and special human talent, and very closely coupled to consciousness and self reflection .

News flash!!! The it's really trivial !
  That is to say, humans are really trivial thought processors. The most special thing we can do can be encoded on a SIM card.

It's not that AI ate complex it's that we're not complex.

And of course if you think about it this is not surprising. Brains evolved by trial and error so the process of making anything sophisticated just isn't baked into the evolutionary process .

Moreover as GANs demonstrate plainly , generative models don't ever improve on their own. They require a competitive discriminator.

Once our brains reached sufficient complexity to assure reproductive success in our current level of socicual competition for mates and not being eaten by tigers the discriminator stopped assisting our brain development.

Surprisingly we have very nearly reach or passed the singularity we all assumed was way way far off.

Strapping a chunky VR headset to your face was literally donning a box

My kid (she's 12 now) slowly got into horror and I went along with her. I never cared about it before and thought of it as a narrow niche of "scare." Nothing is further from the truth. It is a wide and diverse genre, with dozens of contradicting sub-classes. To me, after reading and listening to Johanna Isaacson (https://www.commonnotions.org/stepford-daughters) I can no longer stand it when people reduce it to "scary." It makes me think of Stephen Hawking explaining all religion in one or 2 sentences. I feel like these biologists never went to the movies, they just watched a few ads.

Evidently that's not the case here. A plot in an article he published tools like a plot in his thesis but is for a different compound suggesting he faked the plot. Not plagerism per se