How do you see the future of gaming? Interacting with AI agents with per-programmed personalities and responses to everything? Pick you dialog from a list of 4 choices still? It's not going to be like that any more.

Depends entirely on the numbers and whether those resources are scarce in that place. If the datacenter ends up funding the expansions, and then the community make a profit every month forerever on supplying those utilities, it's a win.

"Past performance is no guarantee of future returns" applies to any recorded dataset.

Not to recorded datasets, particularly. For example, that's the reason to think the sun will rise tomorrow morning - it always has.

When I think about AM radio now, I think about how Alex Jones was successfully sued for $99 bazillion for saying AM radio stuff. Where I grew up, Rush was always to be found on a channel or two.

Depends on "your idea" - was it exclusively yours, does it even constitute an "idea" by that point? I took a tour of Motorola and made a pre-service-launch phone call on Iridium in 1998. SatComms hasn't been an "idea" for many decades, it's a big area that advances with thousands of new ideas every year.

Any reason to disbelieve it or the benefits? Or just emotionally-centered anti-AI-sentiment?

Well if people are successfully blocking data center construction, their objections are a 'factual' problem for big tech. But people are just going to switch to complaining about blocking out the stars.

https://scholar.google.com/sch... Cited by 260,963 Wow

In LLMs you usually use a parameter-specific learning rate algorithm (e.g. ADAM/W) that uses momentum (gradient history). https://dev.to/shrsv/adam-and-...

That's the point, it's getting hard to find specific thinking tasks / games at which AI doesn't dominate people. Now there is one fewer known example.

Yes, certain destinations were off-limits to people who chose to work in defense, however that falls far shy of this "Exit Ban".

The US saying "If you travel to Cuba, you may face charges when you return" or even "You have been charged with a specific crime, so you cannot leave until the charges are resolved is significantly different from China saying "You are important to our plans, so you cannot leave the country at all, and neither can your immediate family", or forbidden a US citizen from leaving because of visa inconsistencies, much less the common situation where Chinese employers require staff to surrender their passports.

Yes, a judge can require the defendant to surrender their passport as a condition of bail, but the USA lacks effective exit controls, so that isn't actually a high barrier to exiting (but makes it tough to come back).

If, as the article suggests, this is an "Exit Ban" on certain individuals and extending to their family members, that's significantly more restrictive than anything the US has imposed on defense workers and top scientists other than during wartime.

Yes, people with sensitive jobs and a security clearance are strongly discouraged from visiting hostile nations, with a subset even being required to submit their travel plans before any foreign travel, but this is explained clearly when you accept employment directly with the US government, or start working under a government contract, and you're always free to not accept the job offer. And yes, all US citizens were for many years prohibited to travel to embargoed nations (Cuba). But this was nowhere near an "exit ban" on key personnel, much less on their family members!

When I held a clearance, I was never forbidden to leave the USA. I might not have a job when I get back, but that's not the same thing at all.

Per the statistics, police shoot and kill quite a few white men as well. Nobody gets worked up about those dudes.

OTOH, when you dig into the individual incidents, pretty much all of those dead white men were actively attacking the police, usually with a weapon (), so it's difficult to get to worked up about those deaths.

So it's interesting that the summary mentions Geoffrey Hinton, with his 10% or 20% estimate of AI ending the world. In the consensus of the ML community 10 years ago, neural nets had less than a 10% probability of becoming as artificially intelligent as they are right now. Making a useful estimation of risk is impossible when probability is near 0 and consequence is near infinity.

Which is why OP used "cure cancer!" as a joke.

However, much progress has been made. I am alive right now because of a breakthrough cancer therapy that was FDA approved in 2011. (Well after Nixon!)

This fall I am going to get a therapy that mass-replicates your own immune cells in a lab for re-injection. It's so expensive (and has uncertain benefit) that it's not generally available in the UK or Canada yet. Automation will be a key to making it cost-effective.

It's such a complex area, I think information retrieval and computational science / simulation, or AI if you prefer, will help.