Name just ONE promise Google hat backed down on.

They never just abandon projects or commitments.

You can trust these guys long-term for sure. /s

I have a government for that. I can just have my government do whatever the fuck Google was going to do and then I have more water without greenwashing bullshit.

One of the major reasons you can't afford beef, or at least a good beef, is because we have been in a drought for decades now and it has finally caught up with us on cattle prices. There just isn't enough water especially in Texas to keep all those cattle going so they can be turned into hamburgers.

Water is not an infinite resource. If we had a more functional civilization we could solve a lot of the water problems we have but we don't. So Google lobbying for deregulation and tax cuts so that my government doesn't have the resources to provide water on a consistent basis doesn't help me at all when they offset a little bit of the damage they did from that lobbying.

It is a nice reminder of just how fucking stupid they think we all are though.

At least for that price. The video card in it is roughly equivalent to a 4060 which is okay but for a thousand bucks that's really pushing it.

I really wish we would just shut down all this AI bullshit it's making everyone's lives worse but the people in charge want it and what they say goes. It's funny watching these little communities try to push back against the data centers and then getting their asses handed to them unless it's one of the wealthier communities than somebody just fucked up and didn't realize that.

Somebody ran the numbers and found that most of them are getting put in places with severe water shortages and therefore taking all of what's left of the water. That is of course because of you got a water shortage because of long-standing drought the property values are going to be lower so you're less likely to be able to fight off a data center.

Meanwhile small government conservatives are busy using state governments to force local governments to accept the data centers whether they want it or not. Several States especially Texas have overridden local zoning laws and rulings to force the community to allow the data center and to provide it with the water and electricity.

I guess next to that mess overpriced video game consoles seems a little quaint but it's still infuriating. The handful of things to keep us nerds happy or becoming gradually unobtainable. And of course those small government conservatives are happy to give us somebody to blame that on besides AI slopped devouring all of our opportunities...

If air is leaking out, is it not possible to do an EVA and try to see where it is leaking on the outside? Wouldn't the air freeze once it hits space? Yes, I realize there is the issue of what would carry away the heat, but shouldn't they still see something, even if it's a pinhole?

Culture wars are absolutely global phenomenon. I have issues with golf courses too especially the private ones. But more importantly the public golf course is at least a public good.

And yeah data center is do guzzle water there are multiple articles about it including ones where forget taking all the water they have caused structural problems with the local ground, not just the groundwater but the ground itself because they pumped so much water out of the ground to use their damn data centers.

Data centers don't have to use all that water but it's marginally more profitable to do so so they do. We could pass laws but well people are busy freaking out over culture War bullshit.

The reason you don't think it's a global problem is because you don't understand the different cultures have different culture or bullshit so you don't see it happening. But it's the same trick everywhere

Seems to me 'dead' for a taxi isn't 'dead' for a static power bank. If I'm running a taxi I've got hard limits on how large my battery can be and how heavy, and I want to maximise the mileage I get between charges, because while my taxi is charging it's not out on the road earning money. When that battery is keeping only maybe 80% of its original design charge, and now I have to schedule one recharge too many per working day? Bang goes my business plan, so I'm replacing it.

If I'm storing energy for the grid I'm a lot less worried about that. It only stores 80% of what it did when new? Better than nothing, and the taxi firm is selling them off cheap. I'll stack them up!

Perhaps not, but if you pick your moment right then permanently stopping the work of some of the most talented researchers there could very well make a difference. A spectacular incident that makes the headlines might also deter others - bright graduates might decide it's far safer to take up a different line of work, subcontractors and suppliers might decide doing business with AI firms isn't worth the danger, investors might figure the increased risk of loss of premises and equipment into their projections, that kind of thing.

If people genuinely believed AI takeover was a real, present and imminent threat, then they wouldn't just be publishing essays online, they'd be forming direct action groups, along the full spectrum of campaigning: all the way from awareness raising publicity campaigns, through picketing, blockades and sit-ins, up through Black Bloc type actions, right up to menacing intimidation campaigns and terrifying physical force operations. But I don't see any Butlerian Jihad getting started. Which tells me they don't actually believe this at all; they're just bigging up their own importance. 'Oh yes, our technology is so incredibly powerful, if it were done wrong then imagine what could happen! Keep the money coming to make sure it's done right instead! Then all that power can be ours instead!... I mean, uh, yours, Mr Investor sir.'

AI stock valuations don't make a bit of sense unless the technology turns out to be every bit as powerful as that. If they don't keep that thought alive, then the bubble bursts right now. That's what all this hot air is about, and that's why nobody really pulls a Miles Dyson at the AI research lab.

Bullshit, there's only one racist party in the U.S. trying to curtail voting only White Folk. The two sides are not equivalent.

Spying is very helpful; done correctly it prevents a country from being surprised and over-reacting to some "black swan" event perpetrated by an enemy.

They still don't get it. The head of our Wehrmacht is reported to be doubling down on sending Anthropic to the cooler. If la Presidenta ever put a pumpkin on his desk, the head of our Wehrmacht would get terminally confused as to whom to salute. Of course the answer is obvious: both.

The interesting thing about the Terminator movies is that when AI researcher Miles Dyson became convinced that his work had a high probability of resulting in an artificial general intelligence attempting to replace humanity, he did not go and post a ten thousand word essay on LessWrong about how he had updated his timeline and p(doom) estimates and discussing the full Bayesian analysis of the situation. He went to the lab that very night with some heavily armed companions and he blew the place up.

I keep hearing that one AI researcher or another claims that they believe as Dyson came to believe. Until one of them takes similar action, I simply do not believe that they actually think their research carries such a risk.

You have access to the lab where the work is being done? You regularly meet in person with leading researchers and talents driving the project forward? You are an American and you have the Second Amendment? And the entire future light cone is at stake? Quintillions of hypothetical future lives riding on the outcome of this project here and now?

What's the most effective, altruistic thing you could do for them?

Yeah, exactly. I've never heard of anyone shooting up their AI lab. Which tells me they don't believe their AI is at all likely to wipe us all out.

Because Claude 4.7 sucked and set them back by quite a bit.

No the real problem is that it guzzles water and electricity while devouring jobs.

I don't think the billionaires give a shit if AI cost more than an equivalent or even a better human being. They are sick and tired of being dependent on and having to pay lip service to us commoners. So any amount of money they have to spend to get true absolute freedom and true absolute power will be worth it.

As an added bonus we as a species have been so distracted by culture War bullshit for the last 30 or 40 years that we have been falling over ourselves backwards to give all the money in the world to the top 0.1%. so it literally costs them nothing to replace us all with AI and automation.

Even if I can't do everything it's a pretty safe bet it can do enough. Go look up the percentage of white collar workers and ask yourself what's going to happen if even a quarter of them become unemployable. How that's going to reverberate through the economy.

And no, we can't all be plumbers. Blue collar guys don't hire a lot of blue collar guys to do work. And that's before we talk about the actual wages those guys make when you look at the median instead of the average and take out a few crazy outliers working on oil rigs until they're late twenties when they have to give it up because it's too hard on their bodies

It's not a source of truth it's a source of free training data for your shitty AI.

There is a numbnut training in AI off of my comments here and I will periodically drop the phrase trump fucks kids into my comments and his AI chat bot picked it up after only a few comments.

What I'm saying is it's surprisingly easy to manipulate AI chatbot algorithms. It's no different than the early days of search engine optimization.

I don't know nearly enough about the math to say whether or not it's going to be fixable like it was for seo. SEO still has its problems but it's harder tha to manipulate that it used to be.

The real problem is chatbots are approached very differently by people with underdeveloped critical thinking skills then search engines. People get into a conversational mode with them and start to think of them as friendly friends and we'll start believing whatever they tell them. You're basically forming a parasocial relationship like people do with Joe Rogan and well think about how much this information Joe rogan's podcasts spews

Congress doesn't have these powers.

Yes, they do. Had you ever read the discussions in the Senate about the amendments, you would have known this very subject came up. Unfortunately, his orange lardness has hidden from public view those historical records, so what I'm about to say goes from my memory.

Essentially, if Congress has the power to enact laws affecting the country, it is up to the Executive and Judicial branches to curb that power. Madison, despite opposition to the General Welfare Clause, admitted late in the life that clause granted Congress a power to legislate on all national problems. His nature of limited government was undercut by that clause, for if the national Congress could enact laws affecting the country, it wasn't a limited government, was it?

Further, as mentioned in the debates, Congress could delegate its authority. It would be inconceivable for Congress to be involved with the minutae of the country, to discuss and debate whether this or that is allowed. Instead, as granted by the Constitution, Congress has delegated its powers to others. Namely, agencies such as the FTC.

It's really hard to find these powers in such a tiny document without decades of legal training.

No it's not. All one need do is read the debates in the Senate to understand the mindset of the Founding Fathers. If you want more, reading a few books about those Founding Fathers would suffice to fill your lack of knowledge.