Thanks for the info. I was aware of Google's TPUs but I wasn't aware they were so widespread. As for the others, well apparently my understanding is out-of-date.
In any case, the actual layout and timing-studies for a new chip strike me as being far too involved for an AI company that wants to concentrate on other things, like curating data and training models with it. Surely they must have outside help -- lots of it.
"They charge me, per hour, as much as my attorney."
What a super relatable comment. But unsurprising.
"And I'll bet they're not carrying half-a-million in college debt from Columbia Law."
I'll bet your "attorney" isn't either. How can such a narcissist hire an attorney that hasn't paid off his school debt yet? Can't afford any more than plumber's pay?
Why blame any of that? Why not blame the real culprits? Or do you not like accountability?
What did they do with it?
That sounds like a simple answer but ultimately is one which creates a new problem. Indeed the basis of your arguments of passing costs on to the providers sounds solid but we have multiple technical and economic issues that doesn't make this proposal work:
1) Solar isn't an issue. We have excess power available during the day, but datacentres are a relatively constantly load. The biggest stress they will place on the grid is at 7pm when the sun doesn't shine.
2) You could require solar + storage, but even then datacentres will demand a huge grid connection. That grid connection needs to be guaranteed through infrastructure anyway because they aren't going to simply accept a large outage because it was cloudy for a few days. The grid isn't going to accept massive instabilities as major providers also suddenly demand this power all at a similar time so the capacity needs to be available.
3) The people who care are not the people who have a say in this case. This is literally neighbouring states passing costs on to you for their policy. Why would they change their policy to address the needs of *your* people. It's not their residents. They get the economic benefits while sharing the costs. There's literally no reason these states would do what you suggest as it would make *them* worse off (and again shows how a mixture of federal and state based systems breaks down in practice).
The difference is that electric cars and trucks primarily charge overnight, when the demand for electricity is low.
You don't need to improve the grid capacity to serve people charging when you have excess capacity available.
One of the biggest dynamic changes here is that due to solar and wind being largely day time producers, the biggest green energy transition countries and now finding the opposite, the excess capacity is very much during the day.
Where I live this has already happened. Off-peak and on-peak in our contracts have already changed incentivising people to try and doing heavy loads like charging cars, heating, washing, drying, etc during the middle of the day rather than overnight. For info on this google "Solar Duck Curve" In the past 5-10 years the situation has changed dramatically in many parts of the world.
My electric usage is higher at night because that's when I'm home (and charging two cars). During the day when I'm not home, I'm not using much electricity, at all.
Congrats on being you, but the duck curve doesn't care about individuals. The grid only cares about total consumption, and most consumption still happens during the day.
Kiro isn't bad, but it's not the best. Allowing them to use the competition will be good. It'd be like Microsoft not allowing its employees to use Macs, at some level you need to be exposed to the competition to actually be competitive, because you can't float by on your customers being naive forever.
** But on the other hand, I wonder where will they go, since there isn't any real European equivalent to M365, Azure, AWS, Google.
There's literally many alternatives to these in the EU. M365 you can look to Nextcloud, or Colabora, for Azure, AWS, and Google you could look to literally countless cloud providers within the EU.
They could go with the Chinese
The EU has roughly 10x the datacentre capacity of China mostly owned by companies you've never even heard of. Many governments are already using sovereign cloud infrastructure and local companies to achieve this. The EU is slow to pass such rules. One of the reasons is that these rules often go through an incredibly long expert lead (not politician lead) feasibility study. The fact that the EU is talking about passing such rules means they already have shown that what they are proposing is possible. By the time you heard about it in this stage, it is almost universally viable already.
They act as if America is suddenly beneath them and they are snubbing the U.S.
Quite the opposite. They are treating America as the hostile nation that is is. We have over 15 years of evidence that American laws and regulatory frameworks are incompatible with the requirements and laws of the EU. This kind of shit predates even the first Trump presidency, and was a big talking point during the early Obama years too.
So the indignant 'we're leaving' seems weak. Perhaps even pathetic.
I don't blame you for your view. While politically in America it's easy to call someone ignorant for force feeding themselves biased news from one party vs another, obtaining information about other countries is legitimately difficult. It may sound pathetic to you, but that's only because you don't understand the scale of IT within the EU and haven't heard of the companies involved because they aren't multinational across continents and instead focus only on providing services within the EU.
Now. Who is gonna store the data? A European company I assume. Great. Which one? Its gotta be big enough to have the required scale.
Pick one. There's a lot of ignorance here as to the problem. The EU isn't some monolith and no one in the EU is proposing an EU wide single supplier. The scale does not need to cover 700 million people, it needs to cover the data requirements of each country.
As for who has that capability, the EU is only marginally behind the USA when it comes to the number of datacentres, and has about 10x the number of datacentres that China has. There are many cloud providers in the EU, and what is being proposed isn't some strange uncertain case - the EU does not enforce those kinds of rules without feasibility studies, and those studies have shown that plenty of existing member nations *ALREADY HAVE THIS LEVEL OF SOVERIGNTY*.
The EU is literally full of cloud providers and enterprise service providers. It has it's own major AI companies too even if you look to that edge case. That you don't know about them isn't an EU problem (it's actually more of a benefit to the EU).
For example: One of the biggest issues in the Netherlands right now is regarding the purchase of Solvinity by Kyndryl - the latter of whom is a subsidiary of a US company. I will bet you haven't heard of either, despite one running critical digital infrastructure for an entire EU country.
1941 to 1990
You mean 1939?
Oh yeah wait a mo America only "came to its allies aid" after being attacked. That my man is not being a reliable ally, that's being purely self interested.
Would you suggest using Chinese hosted data centers?
Why would the alternative to the US be China when the EU has the second largest number of datacentres and cloud providers in the world? I think a better alternative would be education of the clueless people who think the EU doesn't have anything.
The EU has ~3000-4000 datacentres. China has about ~350-500 depending on which source you would look to.
There are never any bugs you haven't found yet.
