Railed against Trump online, making Right wing American's mad and ensuring that they went out and voted for him thus destroying much of the oil based economy. There's an honest shift to solar energy in East Asia driven by the Iran crisis that would never have happened without this fortuitous turn of events. China had a massive overproduction of solar panels to the extent that even with the new situation they still have too many for the companies to be profitable. Large amounts of this production have now been saved from immediate bankruptcy.

All caused by angry right wingers.

It's interesting the first comment is basically repeating the elite view "we already know everything about you, get over it". Something that they definitely don't apply to themselves. What is different is that in current US law, you can more or less outsource the actual dragnet to private industry and then treat the data you get back as unsourced tip offs that you don't need to justify. There are some attempts to limit this, mostly after moments when politicians get tangled up in similar situations, but it really is a big change from historical rules.

Really I was modelling my hypothetical DA on the ones from Dexter. I actually find the AC defense here more worrying than my own comment. There's no way we'd find out what I proposed had happened. The misdirection points to someone who actually deeply cares about my scenario and wants to defend their ability to do it. More recent Slashdot stories about tracking "No Kings" protesters with multi-platform integrated surveillence probably are quite close to the bone. The things that various bad actors will be able to do to their partners children etc. etc. are just a side issue.

All the more reason to be honest. The experience has been had with China where everything got copied and the wrong lesson will be learned. They will not invest properly in cheap countries rather than learning to avoid semi-lawless dictatorships.

A) it's cheaper
B) you don't care about the result but want plausible deniability that you made an effort to do a good job.

"In order to ensure quality work we deployed a state of the art artificial intelligence system validated to perform above average in both people and other dedicated systems. The catastrophe was in no way foreseeable and liability is clearly excluded in the contract which clearly says that using our system for disease control requires a separate liability limitation negotiation." may be a phrase you want to use here.

you did ask.

No it isn't. "Anonymized" data actually isn't. Let's say that I'm a gang member and I'm trying to track a DA. I know that he's got a special custom SUV that's pretty rare. I also know where his home is and where the court is so I know his leaving and arrival time for each journey. All I need is "anonymized" data with the model names included. Now I follow that for a week or two. Each time I compare the traffic data with the trip time and I build route data. Initially I will find multiple possible roads used for each journey segment, but after a few trips each will be ruled out and I'll be able to know exactly where the DA journeys. Now I can pick the best locations for assassination without risking having to do physical scouting or monitoring that could be detected.

People don't get that the whole point of authoritarianism is that you can do bad things to selected people and nobody can say anything. Look at what Beria used to do to young Russian girls. Every person who says this should be arrested for as a pedophile collaborator. Every parent and every decent person in society who supports every parent has something to hide and F. them and it's time to make it automatic to put the "nothing to hide" people on the sex offenders register.

What does it mean "intelligent as a person"; if its "solve problems of management better than a human" sure, we're there. If it means "pick up the things that deep learning based LLMs keep failing on", we still seem to be decades away.

There's a Carlin quote about average intelligence incoming somewhere.

Computers surpassed humans within limited fields of artificial intelligence decades ago. The only useful claim would be "surpasses humans in all ways" and that would include "failing to be credulous", which all systems we have currently fail.

What we have is a group of people who fraudulently called their statistical projection systems "Artificial Intelligence" and used the term "AGI" to cover themselves in case someone ever legally called out their fraud, now so desperate that they are actually using up that term. What's the next one going to be "ARI" (Artificial Real Intelligence) or maybe "ARGGGGGI"

These people can't even define intelligence clearly.

This is a different issue. This is discussing the situation of gathering power from the edge of the grid (e.g. home solar) and bringing it up into the central grid, rather than as now having power distributed from the power stations at the centre of the grid out.

Note that it's talking about substations particularly the ones that provide to domestic consumers.

I'm talking only about high voltage transmission, not about local grid to (and potentially from) consumer transmission. In high voltage transmission the actual cost of the metal conductors and the transmission link massively dominates the other components and so, whilst there are some unidirectional HVDC links, even there they are rare.

I was going to tell you that ERCOT is living in the stone age of electricity transmission because I remembered that you were mostly right. However luckily I actually checked because it turns out that ERCOT has turned on dynamic pricing and now works the way I said and no longer as you just described. You would not have been wrong 10 years ago, but this has changed.

You are both very much missing the point. Almost all power usage should be directly balanced by generation. When demand goes very high, prices go very high, all available generation runs at whatever level it can and demand reduces, through reducing most commercial use, until things match. When generation goes high, prices reduce, all available demand runs and most generation that can be forced off the grid is (typically with the exception of nuclear and some home solar, though that is voltage limited).

What the storage does is takes the lowest possible point of price, uses lots of electricity during it and supports the grid price keeping more generators profitable, then takes the highest price and sells into it, keeping more uses reasonable. A key point here is that almost all electricity transmission connections are bi-directional and the cost of making them so is a trivial addition on uni-directional transmission.

By putting some demand (the data centre) together with some storage (the batteries) together with some generation (wind or solar plants) then at the moments that really matter each of the elements benefit. Importantly, the batteries, and especially the renewable plant get to be overbuilt for the data center because they can also satisfy other needs. The transmission gets to share costs between incoming power for the data center (when there's no sun) and outgoing power from the panels (when there's lots of sun). When there's lots of power and lots of demand, the grid becomes transmission limited. At that point the data center us using excess power from the solar panels that wouldn't otherwise fit through the transmission and so it gets cheaper energy and the reneable generator gets more money.

It's a win, win, win situation even though you never run the whole data center for a long time on just the batteries.

It would be highly funny if a Chinese action designed to destroy America was actually what slowed things down a little and saved the US economy. Definitely it's a good discussion to have.

However, the thing about mindlessly saying "they're right" is that they will be targeting the best data centers and ignoring the worst. Data centers need to be built where there's an excess of renewable energy and be used to subsidize huge battery build ups in those places. Done right, putting demand in the right places pays for power that can be used for everyone. Instead some people are proposing that they generate their own power - often using fossil fuels.

Even if China has a point, and the best propaganda always has some truth behind it, that doesn't mean that what they are doing is helpful.