Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What's slowing down the AI buildout

worksinprogress.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 237 posts

Re: What's slowing down the AI buildout

#191

Post by trescenzi »

hraxz wrote: post #173
trescenzi wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree. One thing the AI bros believe though is that growth == useful. If you strongly believe that the larger the model the smarter it is then you think through growth we get AGI which implicitly is useful because reasons.

Or maybe you just lack the intellectual curiosity to get anything from these models. You have to a fucking moron to think Claude is not "useful".

My stance is more that compute isn’t the limiting factor anymore. These models are useful if you’re a software dev. What we need is time to integrate these models in ways that are useful to normal people. I do not share the belief that if we keep expanding we’ll hit some magical limit where it’ll suddenly be a god and solve our problems.

Re: What's slowing down the AI buildout

#192

Post by dfjosfasdfoj »

jurgenburgen wrote: post #179
TwoNineFive wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI buildout is not just slowing down but falling apart Premise perverted, FUD averted, false-victimhood denied. A datacenter did not murder your family.

A data center might not have murdered his family but the constant AI hype is super tiresome. PR heads are raging over the amazing shit that AI does and how everything is going to change and just WOWZA BAZINGA. Yet in my daily life I use it for years and it’s wrong _all_ the time, I end up having to yell at it because it keeps being lazy and gaslighting me, the data centers boil the oceans and rich assholes beg my gov…

[dead]

Re: What's slowing down the AI buildout

#193

Post by altcognito »

bob1029 wrote: post #110
jon-wood wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really saying that in 2026, a year when only the nuts are still trying to claim climate change isn’t a thing, the most intelligent approach to the problem of powering data centres that are mostly being built for the purpose of juicing share prices is gas turbines at an industrial scale? The most intelligent approach is to not build the things. The next most intelligent approach is solar and batteries nearby.…

The natural gas is already being flared off to protect the environment (CH4 is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2). The key with this project is that instead of wasting the thermal energy from this unused gas, we feed it into power plants that are constructed nearby, eliminating the need for new pipeline infrastructure and providing some actual value. You could go on to argue the oil fields themselves should cease…

Flared from oil production.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that "we're already flaring off the gas", but increasing dependency on the process is the wrong direction all the same.

Re: What's slowing down the AI buildout

#194

Post by dfjosfasdfoj »

hraxz wrote: post #173
trescenzi wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree. One thing the AI bros believe though is that growth == useful. If you strongly believe that the larger the model the smarter it is then you think through growth we get AGI which implicitly is useful because reasons.

Or maybe you just lack the intellectual curiosity to get anything from these models. You have to a fucking moron to think Claude is not "useful".

[dead]

Re: What's slowing down the AI buildout

#195

Post by mixmastamyk »

michaelmrose wrote: post #118
ssl-3 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Owning an EV doesn't necessitate spending a few grand to have a fast charger installed. They charge fine from a regular 110v US wall outlet -- they just do it slowly. And by "slowly," I mean: Somewhere in the realm of 2-5 miles per hour. It's not fast at all. But that's compatible with many lifestyles, wherein: The car is probably just sitting there at home for 12 or more hours per day, anyway. If the round-trip comm…

Even people who have a round trip commute of 30 miles drive other places than work on average days and have days when they drive 2 and 3x as much as normal days every time enough greater than average days line up you have to contend with finding a charger which gets more contentious as more electric cars exist AND as they age in the hands of people who cannot afford to just replace car or battery.

Doesn’t matter, go to a charging station once every two weeks if/when charging gets behind. If you’re determined to fail instead of succeed there’s always more excuses to be made.

There’s a good tech connections series on this. Slow home charging has been doable for quite a while.

Re: What's slowing down the AI buildout

#196

Post by mixmastamyk »

Yizahi wrote: post #186
dghlsakjg wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are people so convinced that we need an EV charger per car at every home? We need enough high speed chargers in the right places. The average American drives 37 miles per day. That pencils out to less than 30 minutes of charging per week using current high speed standards (which will continue to drop). Your friend could take their car at 20% if they knew that they could charge quickly at their destination. We don…

> Why are people so convinced that we need an EV charger per car at every home? > After a week of just running the 1.5 kw slow charger I realized that was fine. Wait, did you tell that you were using EV charger at home actually? I'm confused by the wording.

120v slow charging, only needs a dongle perhaps. Fine for most people who aren’t road warriors.

240v medium charging often needs a wall mount charger, though can plug into a dryer/oven outlet. More expensive but meets the needs of everyone.

Re: What's slowing down the AI buildout

#197

Post by mixmastamyk »

michaelmrose wrote: post #116
dghlsakjg wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are people so convinced that we need an EV charger per car at every home? We need enough high speed chargers in the right places. The average American drives 37 miles per day. That pencils out to less than 30 minutes of charging per week using current high speed standards (which will continue to drop). Your friend could take their car at 20% if they knew that they could charge quickly at their destination. We don…

How many is enough is a complicated thing though. You don't need there to be as many pumps as cars because there is enough everywhere that you know with certainty that you can find one any given time within 15 minutes and be refueled in 5. If you have a charger or as many chargers at your apartment for the number of electric cars you know you are going to be able to charge with certainty. If you have some small numbe…

Whenever I’m in a hurry the local gas stations are swamped. Twenty minutes is common, thirty minutes not uncommon. A month ago the pump we were on was broken and had to get my money back and abandon the attempt. Had no more than ten minutes to fuel and couldn’t do it.

See, we can apply the same brand of defeatism to anything.

Re: What's slowing down the AI buildout

#198

Post by michaelmrose »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #195
michaelmrose wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even people who have a round trip commute of 30 miles drive other places than work on average days and have days when they drive 2 and 3x as much as normal days every time enough greater than average days line up you have to contend with finding a charger which gets more contentious as more electric cars exist AND as they age in the hands of people who cannot afford to just replace car or battery.

Doesn’t matter, go to a charging station once every two weeks if/when charging gets behind. If you’re determined to fail instead of succeed there’s always more excuses to be made. There’s a good tech connections series on this. Slow home charging has been doable for quite a while.

It's doable for single family detached housing for users with a modest daily drive and relatively flat usage patterns so long as they can afford to pay a premium on the car and replace it in a timely fashion when the battery gets sufficiently old that its capacity continues to match peaks in usage with the understanding that failure to keep up means you don't get to work on time or can't get home.

Which is exactly why techbros think its obvious and most regular people aren't buying.

Re: What's slowing down the AI buildout

#199

Post by wilg »

noosphr wrote: post #115
rconti wrote: post #68

Remember when we didn't have enough electricity for electric cars?

We still don't. Until free/at cost car charging is provided at work when the sun shines you're just moving the place where combustion happens. This may be a worth while trade in downtowns where the main form of car pollution is engine exhaust at an average of 20mph.

The "long tailpipe" concept is outdated and incorrect.

Re: What's slowing down the AI buildout

#200

Post by kulahan »

fnordian_slip wrote: post #175
kulahan wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how public works funding would look if 90% of the nation wasn’t painfully far behind in maintenance. But also, AI data centers have been around for like 3 years. It’s not surprising they haven’t reached a high level of efficiency yet. IMO they are not an argument against excessive power use (I know this is not your argument, just a common one), but rather and argument FOR better (read: nuclear) power generat…

Why do so many otherwise seemingly rational people pretend that nuclear is the answer to our energy needs? It doesn't make sense economically, it's just wishful thinking. The only cheap nuclear energy is from plants that have already been built, because it won't help if we tear them down. But as soon as you factor in the costs of building, insurance and storage of materials, it's always more expensive than renewables…

Why do people create this false narrative that renewables and nuclear somehow aren’t the same thing? Why do people pretend that nuclear is not a solution to our energy needs? Why do they seem addicted to pretending the absolute worst alternatives, like solar and wind, are going to be the solution?

The only forms of power generation worth a shit are hydro, geothermal, and nuclear. Geothermal and hydro are geographically bound to certain locations.

Solar sucks dick unless you magically invent a new battery (and if you think we haven’t been trying, you’re crazy). I mean, MAYBE we’ll have a major scientific breakthrough and it’ll be possible to utilize them, but relying largely on an energy source most scarce when you need it most is obviously dumb.

Wind is completely unpredictable and once again, if it’s not, it’s geographically bound.

At least have an argument that doesn’t look stupid as shit. “This thing we haven’t been investing in for 50 years is ESSPENSIV!! Also what’s fusion idk prolly dumb stuff guyz”

Post reply on HN