Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Oh, Such Greatness (Score 4, Insightful) 204

You know, where the second child died of Measles? Lubbock, TX is at about half the distance between Dallas, TX, and Albuquerque, NW, and nowhere near the border to Mexico. All of the infected were not vaccinated, and most of them are under 18 years old - children, whose parents were not very keen on having their children protected. For some reason, none of the measles cases reported were illegal immigrants.

Comment Re:This guy expects Chinas collapse ... (Score 3, Interesting) 36

I watch a lot of PZ, but you need to take that guy with a grain of salt. Yes, he's generally correct about the overall trends, and he got famous by predicting the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but he's also prone to wild exaggerations, and often spouts incorrect details about countries or industries he talks about.

In the case of China, PZ's biggest argument that they're past peak and falling is demographic data. Unfortunately, just like their financial numbers, their demographic numbers are unreliable too. Most of this was systemic... instead of having a central institution do the census, China relies on data from provinces and adds them up. Unfortunately it also uses that data to determine transfer payments to provinces for things like school funding. So if you were governing a province and wanted more money for schools, you had an incentive to inflate the numbers, and this is what was happening for a long time. As China has been slowly releasing corrections to the data, massive numbers of people are just disappearing from the official counts. Like maybe one or two hundred million people.

What this means is that China's much further along the path to demographic decline than most other countries, and worse, they were actively trying to suppress birth rates with the one-child policy for a good portion of this timeframe. By the time they figured out what was going on, it was too late. You can't suddenly manufacture a bunch of 18 year-olds to fill your factories. And as a nation, they're very unfriendly to immigration, so that option is off the table too.

Now, China also has a leader who likes to shoot the messenger. Anyone under him who publishes data that Xi doesn't like finds himself on the outside, and unemployed. (Which is why we were all so aghast when Trump did the same thing with the jobs numbers.)

So yes, the reliable data we do have seems to indicate that China is in a lot of trouble. But don't take everything PZ says as gospel. He's often wrong.

Comment You're preaching to the choir (Score 3, Informative) 53

Most of the people on Slashdot have been screaming that the emperor has no clothes for a while now. Building a machine that spits out semi-plausible dialogue is very different from making an intelligent machine. I just asked Google's AI to summarize information about myself (my own name from my own town) and it rather hilariously indicated that my wife was actually my (IRL) sister. It had apparently retrieved the names from an obituary for our grandparent but didn't actually understand the relationships. We're not seeing the meaningful improvements that you would hope to see given the ludicrous capital that's been invested into LLMs. This isn't like Moore's Law in the 90's where there is constant improvement along a single axis (transistors per square mm). There have been a couple really big breakthroughs (first deep learning, and then transformers). Throwing more and more compute power at it isn't going to create the payoff that all the investors think. It's not going to get significantly better without more big breakthroughs, and those might come tomorrow, or not until long after we're all dead and gone. LLMs are a very risky bet right now.

Submission + - The AI Bubble That Isn't There (forbes.com)

smooth wombat writes: Michael Burry recently said he believes the AI market is in a bubble. Why should anyone listen to him? He's the guy who famously predicted the subprime mortgage crisis and made $100 million for himself, and $725 million for his hedge fund investors, by shorting the mortgage bond market. Will he be right in his most recent prediction? Only time will tell, but according to Jason Alexander at Forbes, Burry, and many others, are looking at AI the wrong way. For him, there is no AI bubble. Instead, AI is following the pattern of the electrical grid, the phone system and yes, the internet, all of which looked irrational at the time. His belief is people are applying outdated models to the AI buildout which makes it seem an irrational bubble. His words:

The irony is that the “AI bubble” narrative is itself a bubble, inflated by people applying outdated analogies to a phenomenon that does not fit them. Critics point to OpenAI’s operating losses, its heavy compute requirements and the fact that its expenses dwarf its revenues.

Under classical software economics, these would indeed be warning signs. But AI is not following the cost structures of apps or social platforms. It is following the cost structures of infrastructure.

The early electrical grid looked irrational. The first telephone networks looked irrational. Railroads looked irrational. In every major infrastructural transition, society endured long periods of heavy spending, imbalance and apparent excess. These were not signs of bubbles. They were signs that the substrate of daily life was being rebuilt.

OpenAI’s spending is no more indicative of a bubble than Edison’s power stations or Bell’s early switchboards. The economics only appear flawed if one assumes the system they are building already exists.

What we are witnessing is not a speculative mania but a structural transformation driven by thermodynamics, power density and a global shift toward energy-based intelligence.

The bubble narrative persists because many observers are diagnosing this moment with the wrong conceptual tools. They are treating an energy-driven transformation as if it were a software upgrade.

Comment Re:way more than some irrationality (Score 1) 56

I think we are going to see a 'correction' we go down 10% or or less from recent highs and trade sideways for a while.

Most of the big guys in AI are already down more than 10% in the past week. Today isn't looking any better. Once Nvidia reports tomorrow after the bell will we see stabilization, assuming they have good news to report.

Comment Re:Suspicious (Score 1) 88

And that's a problem exactly why? I don't claim it to be 100%, I just point out the error of assuming 100% uptime for any type of energy source. Any power source based on heat and mechanical components has a lot of wear and tear, and components have to be serviced and replaced all the time, be it coal, gas or nuclear.

Slashdot Top Deals

The idle man does not know what it is to enjoy rest.

Working...