No. Like any software, AI requires maintenance, and that maintenance costs money, lots of money.

It does not. Models need nothing more than the storage of some gigs of weights, and a GPU capable of running them.

If you mean "the information goes stale", one, that doesn't happen at all with RAG. And two, updating information with a finetune or even LORA is not a resource-intense task. It's making new foundations that is immensely resource intensive.

Can you integrate it into your products and work flow?

Yes, with precisely the difficulty level of any other API.

Can you train it on your own data?

With much less difficulty than trying to do that with a closed model.

Sorry, but a sawtooth wave is full of singularities, not that we can generate a true sawtooth wave, but singularity doesn't tell us we don't know what's going on. You need a larger context to know if and what it means. IIUC Hawking believed that the black hole singularity would never actually be reached, even on an internal frame of reference...that uncertainty would prevent that from happening. A singularity just means that the projection you're making stops working. If we're talking about the space-time of a black hole, I think this means we can't predict what happens, but I wouldn't bet against Hawking.

IIUC, it doesn't actually have a singularity, it will just eventually have one after an infinite amount of time (as measured from outside). And when the singularity happens the laws of physics break down...so nobody know what it looks like from the inside. But the precursors to the appearance of the singularity are such that there won't be any observers, even in the Quantum Mechanics sense of observer.

Dark energy isn't a theory, it's just a name. A name for "something with these particular properties". My quibble is that those properties don't seem reasonable. We can't measure the expansion of the universe with one number if it's not expanding the same rate everywhere, and it shouldn't be. Also the measured rate of expansion is ... well, it has pretty large error bars, because our ways of judging distance aren't that precise. And don't always agree. And our ways of measuring expansion depend on sparse measurements...which is fine for a uniform surface, but that doesn't describe the universe. Remember that the rate at which time flows should vary with the density of the matter in the area.

If it did, I'd guess Aristarchus didn't account for Jupiter's effects.

FWIW, epicycles can match Newton's math for accurate predictions, it just gets a lot more complicated. And isn't as theoretically elegant. (I'm not sure it couldn't be made to handle the deviation of Mercury's orbit. It's quite good at ad hoc adjustments.)

Yeah, but what is the certainty? I'd ask for error bars, but that doesn't directly apply to a theory.

There is, indeed, evidence that the universe used to be expanding quite rapdily, but "inflaton" particles feel quite ad hoc, and thus not to be trusted. And while the expansion theory is consistent will all the evidence, I'm not sure what the error bars are on a lot of those measurements. Perhaps it tends to expand sinusoidally, or even at random times and places...how would you test? Different groups using different measures have come up with different answers as to the rate/consistency of the expansion. This makes me feel that any strong belief in any explanation is probably at best premature.

In fact, I believe that any universal rate of expansion is incompatible with general relativity. Not only would it need to vary with the density of the matter locally, but it seems to require a universal frame of reference.

In addition to the other objection, "low level heat" is a useful commodity. Why not use it rather than throwing it away.

Elon just made a pertinent statement:
https://futurism.com/future-so...

And my point is that AI wouldn't just stop being used even if the bubble imploded so heavily that all of the major AI providers of today went under. It's just too easy to run today. The average person who wants something free would on average use a worse-quality model, but they're not going to just stop using models. And inference costs for higher-end models would crash if the big AI companies were no longer monopolozing the giant datacentres (which will not simply vanish just because their owners lose their shirts; power is only about a third the cost of a datacentre, and it gets even cheaper if you idle datacentres during their local electricity peak-demand times).

Waste from a molten salt reactor should be fairly stable. Put it in the center of a glass brick and use it as a low level heat source. (Actually, that's what I think they ought to do with most reactor waste except the stuff that's too hot for glass to hold. And you might need a couple of barriers within the glass. Glass would stop alpha and beta cold, but some gamma might need a lead foil screen.)

Yes, there's a paper saying that given enough centuries the waste will slowly leach out. But the level of the radiation emitted would be less than the rock it was concentrated from. The only problem is the rate of release, and if you dilute it enough the problem disappears. (Either that, or nobody should live much above sea level.)

Scale *will* have its own challenges. So will maintenance. This is an "always true". They may well but soluble, but that sure isn't guaranteed.

Your scenario is impossible, so try again.

Because we're discussing a scenario where the big AI companies have gone out of business, remember? And the question is whether people just stop using the thing that they found useful, or whether they merely switch to whatever alternative still works.

It's like saying that if Amazon went out of business, people would just stop buying things online because "going to a different website is too hard". It's nonsensical.

They believed you could mimic intelligence with clockwork, etc. Why do you only count if it if it involves computers?

If you want to jump to the era of *modern* literature, the generally first accepted robot in (non-obscure) modern literature is Tik-Tok from the Oz books, first introduced in 1907. As you might guess from the name, his intelligence was powered by clockwork; he was described as no more able to feel emotions than a sewing machine, and was invented and built by Smith and Tinker (an inventor and an artist). Why not electronic intelligence? Because the concept of a programmable electronic computer didn't exist then. Even ENIAC wasn't built until 1945. The best computers in the world in 1907 worked by... wait for it... clockwork. The most advanced "computer" in the world at the time was the Dalton Adding Machine (1902), the first adding machine to have a 10-digit keyboard. At best some adding machines had electric motors to drive the clockwork, but most didn't even have that; they had to be wound. This is the interior of the most advanced computer in the world in the era Tik-Tok was introduced. While in the Greco-Roman era, it might be something like this (technology of the era that, to a distant land that heard of it, probably sounded so advanced that it fueled the later rumours that Greco-Romans were building clockwork humans capable of advanced actions, even tracking and hunting down spies).

I think this is an oversimplification. Musk dreams of a sci-fi future. Isaacman does too (and is friends with Musk). Duffy wants to gut NASA. Hence, Musk strongly supported Isaacman. It's not too complicated; you don't need to search for subtext when what's out in the open makes perfect sense.