This is the age of AI-driven scarcity.
On the plus side, once the AI bubble bursts and 75% of the AI companies go under, there's likely to be a lot of electrical capacity (and GPUs and RAM) suddenly available at fire-sale prices, at least for a while.
But they are not using those renewables to displace coal internally. They still prefer to use coal as fast as they can mine it or import it.
I don't think that's accurate -- the only people who "prefer to use coal" are in the Trump administration. China, like the rest of the rational world, prefers to use whatever energy source is cheapest and most effective, which might be coal in some situations, or it might be solar, or nuclear, or hydro, or something else.
It would be a problematic precedent if there were criminal liability
Here is a list of examples from the pre-AI era kindly put together for me by Claude... With the prosecuting attorneys' party-affiliations, because BeauHD felt it is important:
After claude found the issues, humans could check and fix them
Claude can do the fixing too, just as easily, in most cases. Maybe, Mythos cannot — never tried it — but Opus or even Sonnet certainly can.
But it isn't. It's easy enough to use stereo vision to measure the distance to an object and then determine whether or not it could get into the drop zone even if it started moving at top speed with no acceleration time. Also, if it was "worried" it wouldn't drop things from such a height.
She should have said "programmed" rather than anthropomorphizing it, but other than that, she's correct -- that is, in fact, how it is programmed to behave.
Also, imagine dozens of drones buzzing over the neighborhood. It would be incredibly annoying.
It depends on the density of the neighborhood. The preferred use-case for drones is "neighborhoods" where the houses are few and far apart from each other, making ground delivery tedious and making the distance between the drone and the nearest set of ears larger.
If even one of the fields it has been deployed to showed something other than the slop all the other have maybe.
Okay, here's one field: in the last four weeks, Claude Code has detected and diagnosed 91 genuine bugs in the open-source library I maintain. That's 91 bugs that likely would have remained unfixed indefinitely, unless/until I (or a user) happened to stumble across a resulting runtime misbehavior and then laboriously worked our way backwards to pinpoint the underlying software defect. I'd estimate probably 150 man-hours were saved, right there.
There are no machines that can reason for any practical purpose.
Is finding, reporting, and fixing latent bugs in C or C++ code a practical purpose? Because they're doing a damn good job of that.
AI 'reasoning' also means you can manipulate it.
If you have access to its command-input interface, either you own the system and are expected to be able to manipulate it, or you've somehow obtained unauthorized access, in which case it has a security problem, and it would be an equally serious problem for a non-AI system.
How, exactly, is a private household supposed to increase their energy usage in the summer? Mine Bitcoin? And how will using more energy reduce their bills? This just shows the unintended problem with solar: It needs to be coupled with lots of storage - not hours, but weeks.
You could mine Bitcoin, I suppose, but the obvious thing to do would be charge up your EV. Energy storage on wheels!
n/t
The LLM cannot "lie" to you. It's simply trying to predict the next word (or part of word/token). That's it.
This reminds me of the time in elementary school when my half-informed friend insisted that the only operation an Intel 8086 chip was capable of was adding 1 and 1 together. I'm pretty sure someone had tried to explain to him that at a fundamental level, CPUs are based on repeated applications of binary logic, but the lesson he took from that was that the Intel 8086 chip in particular was horribly crippled and could not do anything useful.
The "LLMs are just predicting the next word" meme is similar. It was largely true five years ago, and there's still a little bit of truth to it, but 2026-era AIs are much more complex and elaborate than that, in the same way that a 80486 is not "just a one-bit adder".
Nerd-snobbery is the funniest kind of snobbery
I'd be surprised if they weren't using AIs to review the explosion of AI-written code. Having AI #2 review the work of AI #1 seems like the obvious thing to do (if you're trying to avoid paying a human being to do it).
The code an AI writes is exactly the same as an seniour developer would write.
There is one critical difference -- after I've written the code, I'll be pretty familiar with how the code works, as a side effect of having designed it, written it, and tested it. If an AI wrote the code, then it's essentially third-party contractor's code as far as my familiarity with it goes; now I need to go through and read it line-by-line until I've convinced myself it's okay -- or I can cross my fingers and hope that the AI got everything right. Either way, it's my job and my reputation on the line if the code screws the pooch, not the AI's.
One has to look out for engineers -- they begin with sewing machines and end up with the atomic bomb. -- Marcel Pagnol
