It is called Model Collapse, and avoiding it is a hot research topic.

If you punish companies for firing, you get less hiring.

Countries with inflexible labor markets tend to have higher unemployment.

AIs were trained on information generated by people. Where's our (collective) dividend? What's our benefit? And being made redundant, after training our AI replacement, doesn't count. Granted, some people created more information than others, but everyone played some part. For example. the guy cutting a researcher's lawn allowed the the latter to spend more tome and concentration on his work.

That's going to work out for the former only so long, before the rest of the people tire of cake.

are required to re-invest all of their profits in their operation, and not distribute them among owners and shareholders.

One has to be very specific when making deals with goblins.

Just, no.

Or, Gooble Box and tell people they're recharged by stomping on them. :-)

That's reason AI is doomed, the old "Garbage In, Garbage Out" principle. AI will increasingly be trained more and more on AI slop, resulting in an inevitable spiral into mediocrity.

Any behavior you measure and reward people for increases. That seems like a no-brainer. Maybe they should consider rewarding people for actual accomplishements, and not for wasting the most electricity?

Personally, I subscribe to the 'Shoot the hostage" school of negotiating with criminals.

Given that big companies have already made it clear that they think AI will let them do the same work with fewer people, and given that using AI costs the company a lot in terms of compute resources, it seems intuitively obvious that the only reason execs would want to encourage more AI use is to find out what jobs can easily have their headcount reduced by more use of AI.

The people using the most tokens are the ones for whom more of their jobs can be most easily automated. This is not, IMO, a positive sign for the long-term survival of that particular job role. The only rational response is to use AI just enough to show a speed-up, assuming the speed-up actually happens at all, but not enough to be high up on the chart of AI users. Using it way more than that seems self-defeating.

Yeah, that was confusing. But Kenya's president is almost certainly wrong. Here's why:

1. It is not numerically correct, assuming the numbers in the summary are accurate. The country has a surplus adequate to power the data center at somewhere around half to three-quarters capacity even at peak power use, and probably at full capacity for 99 days out of 100. So even if they built it at full capacity right off the bat and did nothing else, you'd still only lose power to a small fraction of Kenya occasionally.

2. They're not building it at full capacity. They're building a small data center at first, then building it up over time as more generating capacity comes online.

3. They're a reliable customer of power. That means that they will alway pay the bill, even if it is high. The grid operators and generation plant operators can charge them a huge premium for bulk power, then use that extra revenue to build more power plants. By the time the data center is running at full capacity, they could have more than enough power to power it.

4. Even if that extra investment in production doesn't happen, they can just refuse to provide the additional power from the grid. I'm sure Microsoft knows how to do solar + storage by now, and if not, they can pay someone to do it for them who does. Or they can build their own geothermal plant right next to the existing one. Or they can do any number of other things to produce power, like installing an SMR.

5. Nothing inherently prevents them from reducing power usage during peak load periods. Service will get slower, but should gracefully degrade, assuming they're doing it right. Nobody will lose power, realistically speaking.

It is unfortunate that so many people look at these data centers and the current worst-case state of resource availability and conclude wrongly that they are infeasible, but this is a common mistake made by planners, legislators, and members of the general public. They fail to account for how the existence of the data center with its need for resources will trigger the production of facilities to exploit previously unusable resources and make them available, and they fail to recognize that in a true power emergency, they can just turn 90% of it off and shift the load to other data centers.

But the reality of the matter is that nobody is going to build a gigawatt of additional power capacity in Kenya unless the government or some private company that needs power pays them to do it. They already have a 23 to 30% surplus compared with their worst-case power consumption. That means that adding more production will just drive power prices down, so they'll get less money for the power they produce.

But as soon as someone like Microsoft starts needing enough power to pull those margins down, suddenly additional capacity becomes economically feasible, and you'll see either existing power companies expanding or new power companies entering the market. And the existence of an all-but-guaranteed higher future demand is the key to making that happen. Without the data center being approved, that motive to expand does not exist, and the grid will likely stay at or near its currently levels unless the government forces the hand of the market by paying someone to build more generating capacity.

If you don't want AI, why would you but a GoogleBook?

It took him 24+ years for his first orbital launch attempt. How long to get him to Mars? I doubt he will live that long.

I do not know why you equate a nonprofit entity with amateurism. Nonprofit defines the tax status of an organization, it does not define their professionalism or (despite the name) profitability.