Gas + wind is the fastest deployment to increase winter production.

As wind is not warranted, you need to deploy full gas power, BUT wind helps to lower the gas consumption by a lot. Solar helps a lot in the other seasons, sometimes making gas unnecessary.

So gas + wind + solar is the usual new power. Later batteries can lower the gas need even more.

Still, AI is growing incredible fast. Network managers will need to stop/delay some projects to ensure the network integrity is not compromised.

That's something I would like to have benchmarks. A new performance comparison between Linux/Proton vs Windows 10 instead of Windows 11.

I guess they will be more or less equal.

Well... You can say it's a "research" zone, but it has huge implications.

If the AI is mainly an advanced parrot, once the data become too small, or self-feeding, it has a huge problem of becoming wrong.

I have to say that these critics are too focused on LLMs while more and more AI is currently mixing different concepts while LLM remain more in the "talkative" layer more than in the "thinking" layer.

But it remains an acceptable concern that a lot of enterprises can be selling automated AI, and if that AI depends too much from previous human data, if AI removes more and more humans from the job market, the model can crumble.
Also we can having artificial expectations on the future expecting higher and higher results while the problem is that it's reaching that levels through copying so the higher it gets, the less data is available, so it will have difficulty to get even better results.

If it's like they said or not has a huge implications for the future of the AI.

That's said, AI is not only LLMs. And the advanced high pattern recognition is very close to abstraction, so LLMs can be smarter than they think.

Still, I agree in moderate caution and don't get blind by the results. We need to understand how much true intelligence has the models. Not just memorization, but understanding.

A rental and a hotel aren't obviously the same.

Hotel require to offer more services, while at the same time, a rental is a temporary lend of rights and obligations to a third party that doesn't exists in a hotel.

Different things.

That's said, because they share a lot of the same market, and because hotels have to offer more services, they are clearly more expensive, so house rentals are cheaper than hotels.
But at the same time, as in holidays people spend more, they are a lot more expensive that regular rentals, pushing regular rentals higher.

It's a bad consequence of a market behavior. Not law misuse required.

At the same time, there are also abuse of this system, making pseudo-hotel services under the disguise of rentals, skipping hotel regulations.

Also too much tourism generate bad externalizations, so I can understand why lots of people complains. So I see a reasonable regulation can help, like require a "license" which price depends on the pressure of the tourism (small number, pretty cheap or even free, large number, expensive), and making a clear distinction between hotel and rentals.

That said, I don't trust politicians to make a "reasonable" regulation. Probably just taxation and useless bureaucracy.

The thing is, having backup fuel generators are cheap, and if the operation is a minor fraction of time, even expensive e-fuels/biofuels are acceptable.

So if you want a 100% renewable grid, you also can do it. Through Power to Fuel technology for the last 10% fraction of consumption.

That's said, while fossil fuels are available, and lots of things require electrification, the money spend on electrification will reduce CO2/fossil fuel consumption faster than focus on the remaining 5-10% of the electricity production.

But even that fraction will be covered sometime. It's not that you can't. It's just is more cost effective to focus on other decarbonization efforts.

AlphaEvolve has developed new ways to do matrix calculations faster than the known algorithms.

For now, I know it will be plagued with problems. High costs, lots of bugs, etc.

But it's just matter of time it will work well.

Then what?

Then it depends in the next bottleneck. What limits our consumption?
There are different possible bottlenecks. One is wealth distribution. It doesn't matter if there are lots of people if robots owners accumulates most of the wealth so consumption of the most is limited or reduced, so the total consumption doesn't increase. That's turn into a dystopia.

Another is resources. We are in a transitional model from limited resources using in a inefficient way towards a new close circle renewable usage of resources. In the meantime, resources can limit the total production capability. In fact, massive automation can make this worse, so it's need to advance here as quickly as possible.

An third is just human desires. A different way of living and culture can just limit our own consumption.

If the three occurs. Wealth redistribution, sustainable resource usage and a rejection of consumerism culture, then the consumption per person in Earth can peak. And if population peaks, also peaks the total production. And as AI and robots advances, our society will need to change as the old job centered model won't work anymore. We won't produce to consume. Robots can do that. We will only work for enjoyment and self-fulfillment, because it's healthful for us (in a moderate level).

There are multiple dystopian futures, but also utopian futures as well, where our moral values changes and humankind can refocus to new goals and ways of living.

I don't expect a soft transition, but still I'm optimistic with the final outcome after some social tensions. More like the previous century. (Let's hope it doesn't include World Wars)

AI is coming and they can't stop it, only slow it.

The copyright system has benefits but also problems.

The idea of copyright is to help creators, inventors, etc. so bring up the idea, which is one of the most difficult steps is correctly rewarded instead of allowing anyone to just copy the good idea and doing a better implementation sometimes not through a refinement but just better manufacture capabilities, creating a barrier between creators and producers.

BUT, that model runs over premises that are crumbling each day it passes.

First, original ideas used to be owned by small inventors or creators. Nowadays most of them are owned by big companies, just because the real creators are employees or because they buy the patent.
Patents & copyrights are more and more using as ways to block innovation instead of spreading it.
Sometimes when the rewards reach the creators (let's say, for example, a group of researchers of a drug inside a big pharma), most of the revenue is dragged by the pharma instead of the researchers.

And now, with AI, while we aren't still in the moment where AI are good as creating new styles or ideas (although there are some success), they clearly allows to DROP the replication costshttps://slashdot.org/story/25/03/27/0023207/openais-viral-studio-ghibli-moment-highlights-ai-copyright-concerns?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed# to a ridiculous degree.

If the old model worked well, rights should drop the cost by creation, while the total revenue could remain flat or even increase thankful to the increase of total works created. BUT that's not how they try to move here.

The people with AI wants free access. Creators wants restrictions.

We clearly a need a new model. One that reward each person, BUT NOT IN EXCESS, and don't try to stop the unstoppable. That only will move the generators from one place to another.
Once the AI tech works enough well, the impact on creation will be enormous, reducing producing costs by a lot.
Now we have images and rudimentary tools. But in the future we will have plenty of tools to make fix a style, build characters, develop scenes through a combination of sketches and tools to tell the AI how the animation should work, not just words..

In the end, a very small of workers will be able to do plenty of work.

That's a huge advantage. We shouldn't stop that revolution. We just need a model that reward each worker rightfully. Style creators too.

The old model require a huge update or just a replacement by a new model.

Maybe it has reached a peak, maybe not.

It's clear that if the population peaks, and without good AI, the total brain will peak one way or another.

It's not the population peak, not yet. But adding people is just one of the factors, so other things can accelerate the peak a little.

BUT, that doesn't mean that's a stop for humankind. So that peak would be forever.
To grow exponentially we clearly needs grow, but we need to create more "space" to grow without collapse our environment.

That's exactly what a space program can do... in a long... very long term. So, for some decades, maybe centuries, our civilization can reach a brain peak. Well. AI progress seems optimistic so we could expand through that for some time. In long term, adding more population will be a must, and that require to build more sustainable places. And probably Earth is not the best place if we want to ensure that our homeworld biosphere doesn't collapse.

Automation and AI can helps us to break that limit in the meantime until a lot of space infrastructure is built. Build computer centers on space would be easier than manned colonies, but in the end, it's almost the same. It require we industrialized space anyway. And that would take time, so that temporary peak is very probable, no matter if it's in the recent past or in the near future.

But we can break that limit. It's not forever if we don't loose the will.

I can understand their claims.

After making some calculations, it seems that most AI datacenters while they eat A LOT of energy, in fact, infrastructure costs (chips) are A LOT HIGHER THAN ENERGY COSTS.

So, they can afford to pay huge energy costs, if that results in advantages like 24x7 generation and in place generation.

Nuclear could suit their needs well.

BUT, that's not excuse to low the guard. As business they will push the most advantage position for them, and nuclear is filled with lots of hidden costs.

If all costs are accounted correctly... I don't see the problem. They want a expensive energy because it has some advantages for them. So... sure. Just pay for everything. Waste management, decommission, some network costs, risk mitigation and security measures, etc...

I think they would reach better results with an energy mix but... whatever. If they want to put their money there, it's their problem.

But only, if IT'S THEIR MONEY.

And still, you can say that it's like something between 6 and 8 nuclear reactors.

For a year installation, It's a very good number.

Like in the best time of nuclear plant installation, around 197x.

These projects needs too much human work, but MAYBE that could be softened through AI in next future, both in terms of reverse engineering and programming an alternative.

But I think the biggest issue here is right issues.

The only reason Microsoft is not actively prosecuting these efforts is because the low level of adoption of these projects. They are too lacking to be useful in most scenarios so they are not a problem for MS.

But in case they advanced to a point they become a real alternative to Windows, I expect a bad reaction from Microsoft, and the law is on his side.

They have lots of patents and it's expected lots of code coincidences, even if there isn't stolen code or too deep reverse engineering ends generating a decompiled code that's near a plagiary.

In the end, until Microsoft disappears, you only can expect work on very old code or minor markets that are no real impactful on the original Windows market.
Otherwise, Microsoft will sue the project as soon as it damages his market.

With a few exceptions, AI is just being used to boost or replace human labor.

Human labor is not the bottleneck of the current economic model. A lot of countries have an excess of human labor. Of course, they are always open to CHEAPER human labor. That's good for the business owner no doubt.

And that could be shown as an slightly progress. After all, human labor is like any other cost. If you reduce it, you can allocate more resources in other place.

BUT... that's the thing. PEOPLE is different, from macroeconomics perspective. People is gonna eat, drink, live in a house, etc. He's gonna consume, though salary or through social welfare.

So saving salaries doesn't change that the economy needs to invest on people one way or another.

If human labor were the economy bottleneck, then after reduce the labor through optimizations, the economy would expand and would get richer.
But, what if there is bottlenecks as energy and raw materials?

Then you only have a wealth redistribution. The owner of the business that got an advantage implementing AI will get richer. The people that work in the replaced/optimized job is poorer. Maybe through government intervention, like taxes, another wealth redistribution occurs and everything ending remain more or less the same.

But that's temporary. As AI gets smarter and smarter, they will start to add real wealth in form of advancements that could allows us to break the real economy bottlenecks. Or at least, we can hope that could happen.

If nor, AI won't benefit most of us. It will just destroy the labor market, with no guaranties that a wealth redistribution will at least compensate that.
But if AI can unlock the solutions for the problems, everything can change.

It's just, AI is still not smart enough. We don't need a million of computer monkeys that replace humans we have in excess. We need a thousand of new Einsteins that give us the right answers for our problems.

It's not.

It's just USA government doesn't care about anything it's not their own interests.

In this case, Europe.

That's my hypothesis. Europe was key in the geopolitical war after WWII because it represented an important source of manufacture, world power and a counterweight against URSS. It's also the gate to Middle East and some African resources.

Now the world has changed. In the future, oil and fossil fuels will loose their power slowly. Middle East will loose their main source of income, so it will radicalize more and more. Europe has being loosing their manufacture capability and power position in the world.
This will come a reality in the next two decades.

Russia also has a limited capability of worldwide control. Their wealth is also mainly based on fossil fuels, so even if they seems very powerful now, it will change very, very fast in upcoming decades.
While now China can be considered as an ally of Russia, it's also about convenience. China will drop Russia as soon as Russia won't be convenient for their interests.

That's the position you can deduce once you accept that the future is renewable and nuclear energy.

So, soon Middle East will cost more than the benefits gets from the control. Also the same on Europe.

So Trump is pushing OTAN for its destruction intentionally. He's forcing a "I want resources and money or I'm out". Whatever Europe choose, they loose. In any case, they will be out in the long run.

That's also the reason he's pushing for new resources, oriented to the new economy. Rare earth minerals as key goal, for example. He told the "drill baby" for their voters, but his real geopolitical movements are pointing into a different future.
Remember whos whispering in Trump's ear. Elon Musk.

These people knows who's the real challenger in next decades over the world hegemony. China.

If you are american, you probably only hear the propaganda. The excuses. But in the end, leaders move over interests and long term plans.

So in the end, their movements is not based on freedom. Trump position on Ukrania is just a business.
Yes... it's cruel and treacherous. Maybe even evil. But it's understandable from an selfish position.

And yes... it's generating a heavy blow in Europe-USA relationship. But... it seems that it's exactly intentional. As he has chosen that the relationship won't beneficial anymore. We are in transition times, were that point is not as clear, so they will force positions. But one day they will just break OTAN (or push Europe to break by themselves with absurd demands).

Welcome to the real world. This is not Hollywood. It's not about freedom or world leadership. It's about (selfish) interests.

Is it that mean that this attack is based on USA? Not necessary. Others (like Russia) can also benefit from it. But if it were a dirty attack from american secret operations, I wouldn't surprised.

I don't expect western media to told us clearly anyway.

Sounds like an announcement did to create the illusion of competition against the announcement of Microsoft's Majorama quantum chip.

If Microsoft hasn't hyped/lied about his chip, it's a breakthrough in how the quantum processors can be built.

I guess Amazon needs to announce something to say that they aren't behind.