As an elder millennial, I just don't know what to say. That a once in a generation allocation of capital should go towards...whatever this all will be, is certainly tragic given current state of the world and its problems. Can't help but see it as the latest in a lifelong series of baffling high stakes decisions of dubious social benefit that have necessarily global consequences.
Yes this capital allocation is a once in a lifetime opportunity to crate AGI that will solve diseases and poverty.
> In an October letter to the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recommended that the US add 100 gigawatts in energy capacity every year. > Krishna also referenced the depreciation of the AI chips inside data centers as another factor: "You've got to use it all in five years because at that point, you've got to throw it away and refill it," he said. And people think the clima…
If we moron our way to large-scale nuclear and renewable energy rollout however..
It could have, though. Higher taxes on the rich, spend it on social programs.
Why is this so horrible. Put more resources in the hands of the average person. They will get pumped right back into the economy. If people have money to spend, they can buy more things, including goods and services from gigantic tax-dodging mega-corporations. Gigantic mega-corporations do enjoy increased growth and higher sales, don't they? Or am I mistaken?
I'm not saying you are wrong that some redistribution can be good, but your analysis is simplistic and ignores many factors. You can just redistribute and then say 'well people will spend the money'. That's literally the 'Broken Window' fallacy from economics. You are ignoring that if you don't redistribute it, money also gets spend, just differently. Also, the central bank is targeting AD, so you're not actually increasing nominal income by redistributing.
Technological advancement is what has pulled billions of people out of poverty. Giving handouts to layabouts isn't an ideal allocation of resources if we want to progress as a civilization.
What if some of the homeless people are children or people who could lead normal lives but found themselves in dire circumstances? Some of us believe that keeping children out of poverty may be an investment in the human capital of a country.
The US already provides significant aid to those in poverty, especially children. We don't need to stifle innovation to reach some level of aid that bleeding hearts deem sufficient.
Technological advancement is what has pulled billions of people out of poverty. Giving handouts to layabouts isn't an ideal allocation of resources if we want to progress as a civilization.
What if some of the homeless people are children or people who could lead normal lives but found themselves in dire circumstances? Some of us believe that keeping children out of poverty may be an investment in the human capital of a country.
Anthropologists measure how civilized a tribe or society was by looking if they took care of the elderly, and what the child survival rates were. USA leads to developed world in child poverty, child homelessness, and highest rate of child death due to violence. Conservatives often bring up the statistic by race. It turns out bringing people over as slaves, and after freedom, refusing to provide land, education, fair access to voting rights, or to housing (by redlining etc.) - all policies advocated by conservatives of time past, was not the smartest thing to do. Our failure as a civilized society began and is in large part a consequence of the original sin of the USA.
As an elder millennial, I just don't know what to say. That a once in a generation allocation of capital should go towards...whatever this all will be, is certainly tragic given current state of the world and its problems. Can't help but see it as the latest in a lifelong series of baffling high stakes decisions of dubious social benefit that have necessarily global consequences.
I threw in the towel in April.
It's clear we are Wile E. Coyote running in the air already past the cliff and we haven't fallen yet.
As an elder millennial, I just don't know what to say. That a once in a generation allocation of capital should go towards...whatever this all will be, is certainly tragic given current state of the world and its problems. Can't help but see it as the latest in a lifelong series of baffling high stakes decisions of dubious social benefit that have necessarily global consequences.
I'm a younger millennial. I'm always seeing homeless people in my city and it's an issue that I think about on a daily basis. Couldn't we have spent the money on homeless shelters and food and other things? So many people are in poverty, they can't afford basic necessities. The world is shitty. Yes, I know it's all capital from VC firms and investment firms and other private sources , but it's still capital . It shou…
The last 10 years has seen CA spend more on homelessness than ever before, and more than any other state by a huge margin. The result of that giant expenditure is the problem is worse than ever.
I don't want to get deep in the philosophical weeds around human behavior, techno-optimism, etc., but it is a bit reductive to say "why don't we just give homeless people money".
> Krishna also referenced the depreciation of the AI chips inside data centers as another factor: "You've got to use it all in five years because at that point, you've got to throw it away and refill it," he said This doesn't seem correct to me, or at least is built on several shaky assumptions. One would have to 'refill' your hardware if: - AI accelerator cards all start dying around the 5 year mark, which is possib…
But if your competitor is running newer chips that consume less power per operation, aren't you forced to upgrade as well and dispose of the old hardware?
It depends on how much profit you are making. As long as you can still be profitable on the old hardware you don't have to upgrade.
I'm a younger millennial. I'm always seeing homeless people in my city and it's an issue that I think about on a daily basis. Couldn't we have spent the money on homeless shelters and food and other things? So many people are in poverty, they can't afford basic necessities. The world is shitty. Yes, I know it's all capital from VC firms and investment firms and other private sources , but it's still capital . It shou…
[ This comment I'm making is USA centric. ]. I agree with the idea of making our society better and more equitable - reducing homelessness, hunger, poverty, especially for our children. However, I think redirecting this to AI datacenter spending is a red-herring, here's why I think this: As a society we give a significant portion of our surplus to government. We then vote on what the government should spend this on.…
> AI datacenter spending is massive, but if you add it all up, it doesn't cover half of a years worth of government spending.
I didn't check your math here, but if that's true, AI datacenter spending is a few orders of magnitude larger than I assumed. "massive" doesn't even begin to describe it