Comment Re:Which is it? (Score 1) 97
Comment Re:Which is it? (Score 1) 97
The new models aren’t even any better at executive functions, despite narrow task performance improvements meaning no more job displacement. So “we need to slow down for safety” means they want to continue investing despite a lack of improvement, and hopefully get a bailout while making open source AI a felony to possess so only a handful of companies can monopolize it.
Comment Re:Bitcoin does not need Washington to save it. (Score 2) 79
Comment Re:Renewable+storage = reliable (Score 2) 194
Grid storage is almost diametrically opposed. Energy and power density almost don’t matter at all, if a lithium battery needs to be a ten foot cube, something 100 times less dense mass or power wise is only 46 feet. They can be extremely fragile, and not work under vibration or movement. Low cycle cost lifetime is extremely important. It’s also much more important to have a high efficiency of discharge energy to charge energy. So really lithiums only make sense in niche cases and it’s why pumped hydro is still the vast majority of stored kWh.
Comment Re:Pay attention to the timing (Score 1) 121
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) 121
Comment Re:Pay attention to the timing (Score 1) 121
Comment Re:crime (Score 1) 121
Comment Re:Straight out of War Games (Score 1) 121
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:Translation: (Score 1) 94
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 Re:But their not a national security threat? (Score 1) 167
Otherwise, cut the crap already.
Let them spew crap all day, it’s far preferable to encouraging their agents to go on cyber crime sprees to try and drum up investors.
Comment Yawn. (Score 1) 167
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.