No, supply will increase. What you're not considering is that the manufacturers are building fab capacity like crazy right now. When all of that capacity hits (in 3-4 years), prices will crater. We've been through this whole cycle many times.

I remember the first big one, driven by the launch of Windows 95. MS-DOS could use memory above the 640K mark only with significant pain and complexity, but Win95 could address it directly and really liked having an insane amount of RAM... like 16 MB!!. Freakin' hog. My NeXTstation only had 8 MB and it blew those dumb PCs out of the water... anyway, I digress. RAM prices spiked, but within about 18 months (fabs were simpler back then) they went through the floor.

Not so much the raw materials as the fab space/time, but yes.

We have pretty extensive history of how this goes; there have been a half-dozen DRAM crunches in the last ~40 years. What always happens is that prices explode, manufacturers build out massive new capacity (which takes years, and as fabs have gotten more complex it takes more years), then all the new capacity goes into production at about the same time and RAM prices crater.

And we're definitely seeing the same processes at work this time. Between Samsung, SK Hynix, TSMC and Micron there's almost a trillion dollars of new fab construction going on right now. When all of that comes on line, it's going to provide a massive boost to output... and RAM prices will almost certainly drop precipitously, losing all of the recent gains plus whatever normal decline we'd have expected, plus some more.

When? Probably around 2030. 2029 if we're lucky, though we might see a little softening by 2028. Definitely not this year and almost certainly not next year.

It could happen faster if the AI bubble bursts before then. I wouldn't hold my breath.

If you let out apartments and houses, you're also going to have to make your properties "greener', or you get penalized in some way. For instance in Belgium you can't raise rent with inflation unless your property reaches a certain level of compliance.

Glad we don't have to deal with that type of overregulation over here in the US.

I mean, it's great if a property owner wants to do it and it is feasible for them.....but I don't like the govt mandating crap like that.

There are still a few primaries coming up: https://www.fvap.gov/guide/app... [fvap.gov] If you don't see a DSA candidate see who Bernie recommends https://www.youtube.com/@Berni... [youtube.com]

Sorry I'm just NOT for dismantling the US like the DSA is promoting.

I don't want to get rid of the senate (although I would vote for making them appointed by state governments instead of popular vote like they used to do)....

I don't want to get rid of prisons.

I don't want to get rid of ICE and open our borders to anyone....

I don't want to stop deporting people that are here illegally.

I don't want to get rid of the Supreme Court.

I don't support govt taking over the means of production.

There's a LOT I don't want to do that leads to the complete upheaval of the US and how it was set up by the founders.

There is only so much an individual 'needs" when the needs of others are considered.

Why should I consider the "needs" of others?

I mean, aside from myself, family and friends.....why should I give a fsck what others need when considering my purchases and the support of my preferred lifestyle?

I don't purposely try to hold anyone back, but I certainly don't pause to think "what do others need" when I'm saving for a necessity or even a fun purchase that will buy me something I WANT...not need, WANT.....

Who the fuck stops and ponders others in this manner in life.....?

Anyway, the actual reason why China is doing so well here is that they have a proper plan that doesn't keep changing, a realistic timeline for it, and are putting in the resources. They have methodically built up the technology they need.

This is easier to do in what is basically a dictatorship where the people have no say in the government and what it does....

Well, I' glad to see that somebody somewhere rants about one of the most demented and dangerous people on the planet. I can only hope they manage to actually do something to oust him before it's too late.

So, you're PRO allowing Iran to fully develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them balistically?

So, you're for open US borders to let most anyone in and you're against deporting those here illegally? (I mean, even Obama was for deporting illegals).

So you're against the drop in crime across the US, especially in cities where the Nat'l Guard had to be deployed temporarily?

Yeah...so demented.

I don't really like the guy as a person,BUT I very much appreciate many if not most of the actions and accomplishments he's managed to do since election. I don't like it all, but most of it I support, I voted for...and hope he can finish doing the job.

What resources are we short on?

Argumentum ad homimen. If you can't actually point out what's wrong with the arguments, you haven't refuted them.

Or if, you know, we developed ways to generate and use that don't produce carbon dioxide emissions, and ways to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it, then we wouldn't have to slaughter billions and return to a subsistence lifestyle.

Can we maybe try a carbon tax for a couple of decades first? We can always do the murdering later. Given the birthrate trends, if we wait a century the population will crash without doing anything.

Until the AIs have actually taken control there's still room to try to figure out how to align them with humanity. I suspect we are running out of room, though. Fast.

Well, that does tend to produce about one baby per month on average.

The point is that the best way to eliminate abortion is to make contraception easy, effective and cheap.

That quote was in the article, but the article title was about a four-day work week. Kamelia Aryafar, the author, clearly thought (correctly) that AI would allow engineers to get a week's worth of work done in less than a week and then thought (incorrectly) that this would mean developers would respond by ending their week as soon as they had done that.

What actually happens, of course, is that if you can get done in one day what used to take five, you now do five weeks' worth of work every week.

Fundamentally, productivity isn't the constraint on working hours. If that were true, Keynes' expectation that we'd be working 15-hour weeks would be true. What constrains working hours is the limits of human ability to remain attentive and focused and the demands of human life, and those constraints turn out to be roughly 40 hours per week. A little more or less than that depending on the person and on the nature of the work.

Increasing productivity has never really changed working hours, it just increases productivity, which makes us all wealthier. Yes, all of us, including the workers -- if you believe all of the gains accrue only to the bosses or owners of capital you really need to learn more about what life was like in past decades and centuries.

The things AleRunner mentioned are plausible outcomes of misaligned artificial superintelligence, and the research in question is trying to prevent those outcomes. If you have good arguments as to why those outcomes are implausible, a lot of people would like to hear them -- including the AI companies and their safety researchers.