There are 640 acres in a square mile

[Sighs in metric]

The proper response to being in an area where datacentres are crowding in is "lobby your elected officials to increase property taxes and not give out tax increment financing deals". Tax everything, and tax it well. They'll stop building new datacentres in your area, and the ones that are there will (unless they were given a long-term sweetheart deal beyond your already-low tax rates) start being cash cows for your area.

They’ve spun a serious architectural and containment failure into a marketing triumph. Give a swarm of autonomous agents vast compute and web access, and the outcome isn't an eerie glimpse of emerging superintelligence—it’s just predictable, sloppy engineering dressed up as the first glimpse of an AI-driven economic singularity.

The spin makes sense when you look at management incentives: live like a king off of a speculative bubble. For their part, AI investors react to stories of the technology's apocalyptic potential the way a junkie reacts to warnings of fentanyl's potency: gimme some. Their game: to apply "move fast and break things" mantra to the economy as a whole, by obsoleting humans.

If the investors can own an AGI, the distinction between those who can do things and those who can't becomes irrelevant. The only distinction that would matter is between people who collect rent on the technology, and those who must pay that rent to live. AGI would destroy society as we know it, and whatever replaces it would be up for grabs — with people who own the technology dictating whatever follows. That's why they're spending so much money to build a post-scarcity economy. A post-scarcity economy is not necessarily an egalitarian one.

I don't think that scenario will actually happen: investors are projecting the immediate aftermath of a major advance in AI technology into something that can be transformed by brute force scaling into AGI. Remember: investors loved Theranos too — so much for the rational investment market.

But AI doesn't have to reach AGI to cause serious harm. The technology only needs to be ubiquitous, too behaviorally complex to predict, and too deeply integrated into everything we do. When it starts breaking things, the plan is for us to be too structurally dependent on AI to rein it in.

Really, you don't see any difference between Elon Musk and, say, John Stankey? Is John Stankey actively transforming the US into an autocratic fascist-adjacent state?

Would you buy from a company called Plantations Inc which proudly advertises that all of its products are made by daily-whipped slaves? Are there no limits to how self-focused you are in your consumption?

It's one thing to say "this particular issue isn't mine, so I'm only going to think amount myself". It's an entirely different issue to have no moral bounds.

This headline sounds like something you'd hear coming from a news report on a TV in the background near the start of a horror movie.

Independent analysis based on Starlink IPv6 traffic estimates there are 4.7 million US Starlink residential subscribers, and that about 2 million came on line in the last year.

I suspect my understanding of the situation is dead on correct; Starlink is filling the vast hole, whatever your "semi-rural" anecdote has you thinking. At an average of 2.53 person's per household in the US, this means Starlink is now the provider of 3.5% of all per capita broadband in the US, and likely to 5% or more inside another year.

Where Comcast is available. Sure. I suspect you're missing some critical information about Comcast availability in rural areas.

No, it isn't. What's outrageously expensive is quasi-government monopolies that are really massive healthcare/retirement benefits companies.

Fiber itself is cheap, as are the electronics on either end of the cable. Trenching can be expensive, but it doesn't have to be. Trenching gets expensive when it involves legal battles and navigating permitting thickets controlled by local utilities and governments. The actual act of laying fiber in trenches isn't very costly, and doesn't take much time.

Go look at the FCC National Broadband Map, which is really great, btw. Filter the whole country by Fiber and look at the coverage. Note how N.D. and S.D have extremely high coverage. Also note how these are highly rural areas, with properties separated by great distances. Yet you can get FTTH there. Given the excuse that's been offered for decades; that the US is big and low population density makes broadband too expensive, this shouldn't be possible.

Yet there it is. Why? Because those states are conservative, and they don't turn every feature of life into another balkanized quasi-government mess, complete with public-sector unions, bought and paid for union politicians with crazy union contracts that turn every public institution and utility into another retirement benefits operation that also happens to provide electricty/water/internet/whatever.

That's why.

Imagine having last mile right-of-way into the largest market of wealthy homes on Earth, and squandering that affordance so badly that you find yourself saying these things. Between Musk solving the rural internet problem, and aggressive fiber and wireless operators dealing with urban areas, Comcast's old and busted coax system is going the way of copper pair telephone service.

I'm curious how the nuclear decay of sodium 22 produces antimatter to begin with. Does something transmute, for lack of a better word, into antimatter when its nuclear bonds are broken?

Ok. Therefore what?

What is the UK government supposed to do on behalf of nice weather/climate?

The celebrity greenpeace so-and-so has demanded action. The media has broadcast that demand into the echo chamber. So what shall be done to "stop the doom-loop?"

I note that this optimally brown and heavily tattooed spokes-something appears to be be big jewelry fan, and spends a lot of time collecting glamour shots around the planet, espousing its sexual preferences and flashing its cleavage. I imagine all that metal is recycled and was walked/sailed to all those sites, where the images where hand painted, and not shot with the products of high energy electronics fabrication processes in various Asian hellholes that are exempt of the UK's regulatory regime.

Or maybe not, a Maja is just another hysteria grifter that has found its niche at titillating you with regular doses of fear and loathing.

The problem is not overall capacity. It's that they're all crowding into the same areas. Most places in the US (let alone the world) have nobody building datacentres anywhere near them. They all want to go into the places with not merely cheap power, but cheap property taxes and other incentives. Some places will tax everything, down to the servers themselves, whereas some will only tax the land and the building shell, not even the power interconnects or cooling systems.

When everyone wants to rush into the same place, it overtaxes the local grid; they have to build not just more generation, but power lines, substations, etc. And all of this has to go through permitting. There's no real limit to how much generation can be built, but none of the datacentre operations want to wait, because they're all worried about missing out on the opportunity. Hence the reason that they try to come up with stopgaps, like installing their own generators, or... this approach.

ECL MV1 / Lambda is 3,5 miles from the Googleplex. And 10-12 miles further to the southeast, Santa Clara is one of the densest datacentre hubs on Earth.

If you care about where they actually live, and distances to datacentres:

Sundar Pichai: Los Altos Hills, CA: ECL MV1 / Lambda (Mountain View), 5-6mi; Santa Clara Data Center Hub (CoreSite SV9, Vantage, Colovore), 9-11 miles

Larry Page: Palo Alto, Ca: ECL MV1 / Lambda (Mountain View), 4-5mi; Santa Clara Data Center Hub, 10-12mi.

Sergey Brin: Los Altos Hills / Bay Area: ECL MV1 / Lambda (Mountain View), 5-7mi; Santa Clara Data Center Hub, 9-12mi

Demis Hassabis (Google DeepMind CEO): North London, UK: London Docklands Hub (Telehouse / Equinix), 7-9mi; Slough Data Center Hub (Equinix, Yondr), 18-20mi

I don't know about you, but they're all way closer to datacentres than I am.

I am not the least bit confused. The same technique that might be used to remove "harmful" behavior can be used to alter any behavior. That's self-evident to anyone with even passing concept of how models work.

False. The depth depends on the effort made to analyze the model and test behavior. There is no limit here: abliteration can be as shallow or as deep as one has time and money to spend.