I suspect that a more fundamental problem is what you would need to preserve.

Embryos are clearly the easier case, being small and impressively good at using some sort of contextual cue system to elaborate an entire body plan from a little cell glob(including more or less graceful handling of cases like identical twins, where physical separation of the cell blob changes requirements dramatically and abruptly); but they are also the case that faces looser constraints. If an embryo manages to grow a brain that falls within expectations for humans it's mission successful. People may have preferences; but a fairly wide range of outcomes counts as normal. If you discard or damage too much the embryo simply won't work anymore; or you'll get ghastly malformations; but there are uncounted billions of hypothetical babies that would count as 'correct' results if you perturb the embryo just slightly.

If you are freezing an adult; you presumably want more. You want the rebuilt result to fall within the realm of being them. That appears to not require an exact copy(people have at least limited ability to handle cell death and replacement or knock a few synapses around without radical personality change most of the time; and a certain amount of forgetting is considered normal); but it is going to require some amount of fidelity that quite possibly wont' be available(depending on what killed them and how, and how quickly and successfully you froze them); and which cannot, in principle, be reconstructed if lost.

Essentially the (much harder because it's all fiddly biotech) equivalent of getting someone to go out and paint a landscape for you vs. getting someone to paint the picture that was damaged when your house burned down. The first task isn't trivial; but it's without theoretical issues and getting someone who can do it to do it is easy enough. The second isn't possible, full stop, in principle, even if you are building the thing atom by atom the information regarding what you want has been partially lost; though it is, potentially, something you could more or less convincingly/inoffensively fake; the way people do photoshop 'restoration' of damaged photos where the result is a lie; but a plausible one that looks better than the damage does.

The fraught ethics of neurally engineering someone until your client says that their personality, memories, and behavior 'seem right' is, of course, left as an exercise to the reader; along with the requisite neuropsychology.

Is this the same Klarna that has already been through one cycle of being super bullish about AI and then having to re-hire some actual customer support?

Ok. If you don't have any position at all, this is pretty pointless.

I would have thought it was more because Prometheus gave people forbidden knowledge. They're trying to imply that the AI will reveal things that people wouldn't otherwise know.

That's only very partially true. The uptick in unpaid mortgages gave the house of cards a little tap; but it was the giant pile of increasingly exotic leverage constructed on top of the relatively boring retail debt that actually gave the situation enough punch to be systemically dangerous; along with the elaborate securitizing, slicing, and trading making it comparatively cumbersome for people to just renegotiate a mortgage headed toward delinquency and take a relatively controlled writedown; rather than just triggering a repossession that left them with a bunch of real estate they weren't well equipped to sell.

??? Maybe that's your point in another comment in another thread. In _this_ thread, all you said was that "I don't understand how they can be "dirty" implying local pollution or particulates." The parts about zoning and regulation were about noise. If we must though, the regulations themselves explicitly do not allow this. The data center is simply breaking the law. It certainly can be argued that the local and federal government are not doing their job in enforcing the actual regulations.

Regardless, the answer to the actual question you asked is exactly what I posted.

Basically what you are doing is spewing nonsense that's orthogonal to the actual conversation. I have to note though that it is odd to have an issue with the electrical grid, but have no problem with using natural gas stoves to cook considering the required infrastructure behind that.

Oh, it's a pittance, to be sure and it is a very limiting way to live

To clarify, do you mean sure it is possible to generate electricity yourself, or do you mean sure it is possible to live without electricity? Either way, while some city dwellers can, it is simply impractical to the point that we might as well call it impossible for many people currently living in cites to live in high rises and skyscrapers without electricity. It is also practically impossible for most of them to generate enough electricity with the tiny access that they have to the resources they would need. For example, many apartment dwellers have a couple of square meters of windows or less and most of them do not have exposure in the right direction and have significant obstruction. Even if it were not probably illegal and disallowed by their landlord to install solar panels on the outside of their apartments, the amount of solar power they would generate even by doing that would not meet their needs. Cities are heavily dependent on infrastructure to support human life and often have a population density far to high to support human life if not for infrastructure and resources that come from outside the city. It is a form of specialization and some of the required infrastructure required is the electrical grid.

And one of the ways that the majority of city dwellers would have to change their way of living would be to stop being city-dwellers. Which was really my point: that you should have included that as a condition in your original post. Quite frankly, I suspect that the level by which you expect people to drastically change might require the majority of people now living to change their status to not living, though it is hard to tell because you have avoided being specific.

This said, I personally am not a big fan of city dwelling and I do not live in a city and where I do live is still too built up for my tastes. However, I can appreciate that many people do prefer to live in cities and there are traditionally some good reasons for them to exist. The fact that they are inherently incapable of being self-supporting is not really a big deal. Not when you consider that the modern world and its currently available technology and legal/tax/zoning/etc. framework makes self-sufficiency problematic for the majority.

I am however, in favor of people achieving as much self-sufficiency as they possibly can in the environment they find themselves in. I think everyone that can should probably be getting home solar and batteries at this point. I do not find the power grid intrinsically bad, but I do think people should avoid dependence on it as much as they can. I also recognize that we live in reality though, and simply expecting people to just abandon all aspects of modern living is not realistic.

As RossCWilliams pointed out, this is obviously not an example of natural market forces since this is a public project. The argument about property values also seems a bit dubious and like it may be just your opinion. You might have to cite some evidence of that.

The biggest problem I have with your post though is that, yet again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I originally posted about. Mea culpa I guess for not doggedly re-iterating my previous point over and over again in every post and naively expecting you to be interested in anything other than just pushing the same point over and over oblivious to what the other person is saying.

To re-iterate, my actual post was about the fact that nuclear power plants (which you seem to be talking about, but avoiding explicitly saying) have a long lead in time, but the demand from TFA appeared rapidly and may disappear rapidly leading to a lot of financial doubt and uncertainty by investors. Then, there is the huge expense by itself, which is also a problem for investors.

A lot to unpack with your post as usual. I am just going to try to avoid the usual deep thread with novella length posts and just point that:

seems to be at odds with TFA. Part of the whole point is that five years ago, the additional power that these AI centers demand was not on the radar. We also do not know if that demand will still be there five years from now. The chips could double or triple in power efficiency. The algorithms? Those could become hundreds or thousands of times more efficient. The whole thing could turn out to just be the latest economic bubble (note, when I say "could", I mean that it will since we already know that with almost 100% certainty) which could collapse (of course, there are other uses for additional electric power if we electrify more things that traditionally burn things for power instead, the data centers could migrate away from where the power can practically be delivered, etc. So, generally, that statement by you does not fit in very well at all with TFA.

I have and, while we seem to agree that it is often a horrible, mangled mess, I am not sure we will see eye to eye on the causes. One of them certainly is from people who don't really understand the issues that the law deals with due to those people who think that language like "no bullshit hypotheticals" is clear and concise. What those people need to understand is whatever they may think a "bullshit hypothetical" is may very well be disagreed with, including by people who are experts in the field with a great track record of actually being right about their hypotheses.

I am pretty sure they neither negate, nor do they typically stack (you can put enhancers on sarcasm and, for example, be extremely sarcastic or scorchingly sarcastic, etc. but the way I read it, it doesn't multiply by itself to get anything other than itself, kind of like the number 1).

Vaguely worded legislation like, for example, "no bullshit hypotheticals"?

Look, I'm all for clearly worded legislation, but my point is that, if you actually want it to be clear, then you need to do a better job of being specific yourself. What specific things do you want people's standing to sue to be taken away for? As it stands, the courts seem to find way too often that people don't have standing to sue when, for example, one of their fundamental rights is being taken away, but the specific victim is not them. It is like the courts seem to completely forget most of the time that they work in a common law system where legal precedents become part of the law and affect everyone, even if those other people are not explicitly having that right violated right now.

So, yeah, if you want to take people's rights away, it really would be better if you would be explicit about the reasons. Just hand waving with a term that basically means "whatever my opinion on the matter happens to be" is not sufficient.

This has nothing to do with my post. The only risks or concerns I considered were the ones investors would have about whether they would get a return on their investment.

Ah yes. No "bullshit hypotheticals". Clear and concise legal language every legal scholar can get behind. (for those immune to irony, put a big mental sarcasm tag around that)

So, that would be 676 kilocalories (also known as a capital C Calorie, the kind that are confusingly used to measure energy in food). That is enough energy to heat a liter of water by 676 degrees Celsius. In other terms, it is enough energy to completely vaporize about 1.09 liters of water. Obviously you don't normally have to completely vaporize water to cook things (in most cases, anyway). So, this assumes high efficiency, which is another matter, but you could certainly heat an 800 ml family size can of condensed soup mixed with 800 ml of water for 1.6 liters to boiling point with that. None of this is a realistic model of course, including the idea that someone in that situation would be having a can of soup for their meal. It's just to point out that there actually is enough energy there.

I am not even going to go into your weird first-world centric questions from the second paragraph. Actually, they look very specifically UK-centric, but anyway.

Well, I think if you append "...to live a modern lifestyle" onto that first sentence, it becomes a pretty dubious proposition for some people. Not everyone. There are plenty of people who could generate their own electricity and be able to use modern electrical appliances without the grid, but there are also plenty who can not. Cities are a prime example of this. City dwellers in apartments, condos, rented houses, cramped ground footprint, etc. are often not able to live off grid due to practical limitations, and a lot of people may not live in cities. Now, you may simply argue that they should not live in cities. Without arguing that either way, I will just point out that you should have mentioned that in your comment.
Basically, while there might be many ways to live, many of those many ways to live are simply not practically available to vast sectors of the population for a variety of reasons. We might not need a grid (and indeed, there are many, many people who actually could live without it), but there would need to be drastic changes to do without it. This, btw, is coming from someone who strongly encourages everyone who can to get a solar power system and battery backup to be as grid-independent as possible.