No. Like any software, AI requires maintenance, and that maintenance costs money, lots of money.

It does not. Models need nothing more than the storage of some gigs of weights, and a GPU capable of running them.

If you mean "the information goes stale", one, that doesn't happen at all with RAG. And two, updating information with a finetune or even LORA is not a resource-intense task. It's making new foundations that is immensely resource intensive.

Can you integrate it into your products and work flow?

Yes, with precisely the difficulty level of any other API.

Can you train it on your own data?

With much less difficulty than trying to do that with a closed model.

Dipshit alert.
If you want to go to that granularity, there's no Black culture nor Asian culture, etc.

Literally, if there is a society of people that's a) uniformly a single ethnic group and b) collectively acts in ways that are identifiable and predictable to the group, it would be Scandinavians.

I'd recommend you read something by Geert Hofstede, if you can read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Who do you believe of two amoral organizations?

Rockstar: giant corp, obviously has a vested interest in painting the employees as shits
Union: ALSO a profit-driven organization just from another direction. Has a vested interest in showing the employees were sainted victims of corporate fascists.

Answer: neither, I simply don't give a shit and would happily see both Rockstar collapse and all of their organizing workers immediately unemployed.

Thorium 232 captures a neutron, turning into Thorium 233. Thorium 233 decays to Uranium 233 by successive beta decays.

The last thing I want out of a map is a "conversational experience,"

The conversation I want is:
ME: "Show me the map."
MAP: "Here."

Neutron capture is not usually considered fusion.

Climate change is a long term problem. We will still need energy sources in 2040.

That's one of the selling points of thorium cycles, that it's more difficult to use to make weapons grade materials. Note "more difficult" may not mean "completely impossible."

That would be highly-enriched uranium ("HEU"), not thorium

Depends on what kind of radiation. Betavoltaics convert beta radiation, but most of the nuclear power sources we talk about don't emit betas (energetic electrons). There are also alphavoltaic devices, but so far these tend to degrade due to radiation damage, so they have only limited lifetime. Actual nuclear reactors emit neutrons and fission fragments, which tend to radiation degrade anything nearby.

I'll say! Commercial devices (using tritium as the source) are in the microwatt range.

Not yet flying on space missions, but the tech is getting better. I wrote a review on this a while back: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ab...

And my point is that AI wouldn't just stop being used even if the bubble imploded so heavily that all of the major AI providers of today went under. It's just too easy to run today. The average person who wants something free would on average use a worse-quality model, but they're not going to just stop using models. And inference costs for higher-end models would crash if the big AI companies were no longer monopolozing the giant datacentres (which will not simply vanish just because their owners lose their shirts; power is only about a third the cost of a datacentre, and it gets even cheaper if you idle datacentres during their local electricity peak-demand times).

Seebeck effect (aka thermoelectric generation) requires a hot side and a cold side. So, to generate power from this, you have to run the hot side hotter. The electronics you're trying to cool are on the hot side, and you want them to be cooler, not hotter.

ln summary, to the extend that you generate power from the heat, you aren't cooling efficiently.

Oh I get it. Whites and their culture are to be despised when possible, lauded when useful. Seems pretty straightforward.

That's pretty much what I finally decided on too. Shrug. I work for a EU firm in the US so we even have a corp car policy that if you get an EV they'll pay for installing a charge station at your house which I suspect I could finagle (or end up paying only an upcharge for) into a decent home-size battery-storage that I've wanted as well.

Maybe my next car-buying cycle.

What people on /. can't seem to wrap their head around is that it's possible to be pro-EV conceptually while recognizing that they might not be the answer to every problem or not there technologically yet:

- yes, I'm a cutting edge tech guy; I would LIKE to drive an ev for all sorts of reasons, some of them irrational
- at the same time, I recognize the shortcomings and have to recognize REAL LIFE calculations of time, value, etc.

Initially, yes, I thought so too.

I don't know what universe you live in but it's rather often that I drive MORE THAN JUST to/from work in a day? I live in an exurb, so while I figured I could get by with 40mi/day on elec to cover the occasional run into the nearest shopping center, parts story, Costco, or Microcenter...well yeah, if most of my driving is going to end up being gas-powered (on an overweight, overcomplicated, under-engined vehicle as well) then...why waste my $/time on a PHEV?

Your scenario is impossible, so try again.

Because we're discussing a scenario where the big AI companies have gone out of business, remember? And the question is whether people just stop using the thing that they found useful, or whether they merely switch to whatever alternative still works.

It's like saying that if Amazon went out of business, people would just stop buying things online because "going to a different website is too hard". It's nonsensical.