Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Pay attention to the timing (Score 1) 119

The "new electrical demand"

The data is from actual use in 2025.

You do need kilowatts to serve many image requests per second. You don't need much energy to serve a single AI request. You do need kilowatts to serve many per second.

An average text response takes 0.0003 KwH of energy, and 0.1s of server time. That much energy used per 0.1 second is about 10kW. My wording and your complaint was about a single hosting of an image, not thousands or millions. A single hosting of a screenshot uses about 0.0000004 Watt-hours (Wh) per year.

Comment Re:Pay attention to the timing (Score 1) 119

Despite being 15% of all data center usage, AI data centers accounted for 50% of all new electrical demand and are expected to be 70% of all data center growth through 2030. You don’t need kW of energy to store or host an image, but you do to host AI. To put it in a car analogy, it’s like saying republicans hate cars instead of saying EV. You lose a lot when you drop the qualifier like you did.

Comment Re:Pay attention to the timing (Score 1) 119

Republicans, as in the constituents, are largely against data centers as well. All AI and data centers do for them is threaten their jobs, devalue their property, and increase the cost of utilities. Maybe if there was a bit of socialism in giving back there would be a silver lining. But at this rate we are looking at more of a silver ammunition situation.

Comment Re:Straight out of War Games (Score 1) 119

Reminds me of the scene in War Games where Joshua is playing the various games over and over and over: Jennifer: What is it doing? David Lightman: It's learning.

Was it even updating the information into its training or implementation layers beyond the instance of the agent? I’d say it was burning more natural gas than learning.

Comment Re:Yawn. (Score 1) 167

but the fact that the recent advances have been so astonishing should at least give us pause.

It took life 3+ billion years, and we might replicate it in 3000 or 5000 years of technological development, but science is barely 2000 years old at the moment. It doesn’t matter how intelligent you can make a computer for the foreseeable future, it will be dependent on humans for everyone’s lifetime reading this, and far beyond. Sure, they could destroy the world, but it’s about a million times more likely by causing resource wars over climate change aggravated by their bottomless consumption before all these nonsense bedtime stories.

Comment Yawn. (Score 1) 167

“AI” models like LLM are barely functional in narrow bands of capability mentally, and are hopelessly complex machines that need constant tending to, while taking 10,000x the power and resources a human does. Computers break down frequently, need constant human attention, need something physical to do everything from mine the resources to fabricate base materials, to fabricate base materials into components, then to design and assemble the components and finally the data centers. Factories have some automation, no factory is 100% automated including diagnostic and repair needs.

Humans are self healing, self replicating, insanely efficient (probably pushing the limits of efficiency baked into physics), machines able to adapt, evolve, and are broadly intelligent. The natural technology they are based on is so many thousands of years more advanced at the current exponential rate that they are indistinguishable from magic.

Wake me up when I can pull a chunk off my server, drop it in some hydrocarbons, irradiate it with UV, and have a brand new complete server (with ram and storage), all in a few months.

Comment Re:Shocking not shocking (Score 0) 166

And why do I want to stick with hybrids?

If you did own an EV, you'd probably just do the bulk of your charging at home. That's what most of us do.

Because in business school it’s taught that the price of a product has nothing to do with the cost of a product. It the highest price you can get people to pay for it. Since people pay for gasoline, then that’s the price per mile despite commercial electricity being 3-5x cheaper. Even at home it’s 2.5-3x cheaper on average.

Comment Re:Different worlds (Score 1) 498

The problem is that China has subsidized these vehicles to produce them below cost.

No, this is an amazing advantage for everyone, just maybe not so good for a few people who take the work of millions as their own. The simple fix is to properly subsidize American products, not necessarily even tariffs as they make everything more expensive. Right now cars and vehicles are in an affordability crisis and vastly dropping the price would be amazing for sales. We can easily afford to subsidize companies in a responsible way, it’s money better spent on strategic defense than hundreds of billions into overinflated missile and drone costs that make the military no longer viable in modern warfare.

Comment Re:Can't compete (Score 1) 498

The US produces more manufacturing output than every other country on earth other than China.

While it’s true that only 15% - 50% of components or base materials are sourced from foreign sources, only 10-15% of products in general rely solely on American manufacturing. No cars or vehicles are 100% American made. No laptops or computers either. In the case of another world war, we wouldn’t fare anything like the last time where we were far more self sufficient.

Comment Re:Can't compete (Score 3, Insightful) 498

It's reasonable for security reasons to have vehicle manufacturing capability remaining in the country.

Wrong. It’s necessary for national security to have all manufacturing of critical gear and components, including fuel, chips, and vehicles in the country but exclusivity isn’t needed nor is it a good thing. America is screwed because we offshored all products for modest short term gain and now we have no capacity without other countries assisting us.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Don't discount flying pigs before you have good air defense." -- jvh@clinet.FI

Working...