I'm really surprised 8GB are still even made, but also that 8GB still costs a whole $20. Not having shopped for a computer for several years, 8GB was the standard low-end configuration back then. It seems progress has ceased.

Yeah it looks like it nearly leveled off about 2010. That's about when I remember 16 GB being a pretty decent / normal configuration.

https://aiimpacts.org/trends-i...

Made me curious if there aren't nations with no military.

enjoy

https://science.howstuffworks....

Interestingly Panama is one of them. After getting rid of Noriega they decided having a military was a bigger risk than not. No US military bases, either.

The federal government of the USA is, as well its role in the world, is of course a bit different.

Cool except it's teleoperated.

Still useful to show what it's physically capable of. And collect training data I presume.

It is interesting to see the gap between autonomous and teleoperated is still so big. (Not surprising I guess since otherwise the streets would be full of self-driving cars).

It is hard but they're working on it:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts...

(Tesla in this case)

The federal government does do a lot of things other than military.

Here we go again with this.

NVidia shipped 100k AI GPUs last year, which - if run nonstop - would consume 7,4 TWh. Crypto consumes over 100 TWh per year, and the world as a whole consumes just under 25000 TWh per year.

AI consumption of power is a pittiance. To get these huge numbers, they have to assume long-term extreme exponential scaling. But you can make anything give insane numbers with an assumption like that.

I simply don't buy the assumption. Not even assuming an AI bust - even assuming that AI keeps hugely growing, and that nobody rests on their laurels but rather keeps training newer and better foundations - the simple fact is that there's far too much progress being made towards vastly more efficient architectures at every level - model structure, neuron structure, training methodologies, and hardware. . Not like "50% better", but like "orders of magnitude better". I just don't buy these notions of infinite exponential growth.

To me it's a cool new robot.

It's interesting that they would start with intentionally inhuman motion for a humanoid robot, but it's a robot, not a nightmare.

Also please nobody bring up the 'uncanny valley.' As an insight it's played out, especially since this isn't a robot that is ever supposed to appear human.

I don't think the next 25 years will bring 120% real increase. The main story of the last 25 years is the world's largest nations played catch-up with what the rich were already doing, but that is petering out. And the global population pyramid is inverting, which while necessary, will start to kick in and cause a serious strain on economies everywhere. And this is before we even get to climate change.

Then again, maybe AI will discover cold fusion and cheap carbon sequestration.

Everyone (including Slashdot) is presenting the study wrong. It's forecasting that world incomes would drop by nearly a fifth relative to what they would have otherwise been, not relative to the present.

Don't you just love those meetings that could have been resolved by email?

"Could have" if only human nature were different than it actually is?

Everything in my experience tells me that the vast majority of people will never mentally process a complex email message. They don't even pretend to. "I told you (in an email)" carries zero weight.

Right but taking out a "loan" is not income (which is handy if you never repay it); and "business expenses" are not income (which is handy is a business ends up paying for your food, your travel, your residence, and even your recreation); and capital gains are paid at less than the rate of regular earnings, which is handy if you take all your compensation as shares instead of a paycheck.

It's not just a question of whether it's justifiable. It's just simply nonsense to think that they can enforce this. Anyone can run Stable Diffusion on their computer. There's a virtually limitless number of models finetuned to make all kinds of porn. It's IMHO extremely annoying all the porn flooding the model sites; I think like 3/4ths of the people using these tools are guys making wank material. Even models that aren't tuned specifically for porn, rarely does anyone (except the foundation model developers, like StabilityAI) specifically try to *prevent* it.

The TL/DR is: if you think stopping pirated music was hard, well, *good luck* stopping people from generating porn on their computers. You might as well pass a law declaring it illegal to draw porn.

Light exposure, depth, degree of exposure, isolated from others or clustered... many factors can affect survivability.

But what's the use if the returned Mars samples just re-enter over Moscow and explode?

The risk of reputational harm is very real. Whenever a big company or government releases a model, you can bet a lot of 'journalists' will be trying to prod it into saying something offensive so they can print the headline "Microsoft AI is racist" etc.