291–296 of 296 posts
I think all misgivings about AI would go away fast, if it solved one important problem for humanity. Carbon nanotubes for space elevators, sustainable nuclear fusion, or something in that ilk.
Personalized medical treatment looks like the most promising candidate so far, would that do it for you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The side effects of spending funds on these mega projects is also something to consider. NASA spending has created a huge pile of technologies that we use day to day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies .
> NASA spending has created a huge pile of technologies that we use day to day We're a little too early to know if that's the case here too. I do foresee a chance at a reality where AI is a dead end, but after it we have a ton of cheap GPU compute lying about, which we all rush to somehow convert into useful compute (by emulating CPU's or translating traditional algorithms into GPU oriented ones or whatever).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling the GPUs the shovels is bonkers because a) shovels are cheap, GPUs are not. And b) when you build a bridge the bridge doesn’t need shovels to be passable. Without GPUs, the datacenter is useless, the model is useless, etc. If anything, the GPUs are the steel that the bridge is made of. Each beam can be replaced, but if too many fail the bridge is impassible. A bridge with a 6 year lifespan for each beam is in…
GPUs don't really have six year lifespans, though. The hardware itself lasts far longer than that, even hardware that's been used for cryptomining in terrible makeshift setups is absolutely fine for reuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then why would Google mess with the bonds at all ? Again, they have the cash to buy that land and develop it without any further consideration beyond permits and planning.
They lock in things like tax rates and insulate their investment against political risks for the duration of its economic life.
Wonderful. I'm so happy this is happening in my community.
There's a pretty big missing case in this comparison: nuclear weapons. The US spent ~$12 trillion in ~2024 dollars on nuclear weapons between 1940 and 1996, and the vast majority of that spending was in the 1950s and early 1960s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_...
This is called paltering, which is lying telling by telling the truth. The delivery systems are included when coming up with that number. So all those submarines, bombers, and ICBMs are also counted. All 3 systems of course are still valuable and useful without nuclear weapons.
1. ICBMs. I question your claim that these are "of course" valuable without nuclear payloads.
No ICBM has even been used in war (there's a questionable case of Russia using an experimental missile in 2024 in Ukraine). Certainly, without nuclear payloads, they would be a lot less valuable.
2. Submarines, bombers. Yes, these general categories of vehicles have military value beyond delivering nuclear weapons.
The specific ones that are most likely to be used for delivering nuclear weapons were developed and built for this specific purpose, often at extremely high cost (with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_B-2_Spirit as a specific example).
These delivery systems for nuclear weapons wouldn't have been built in such great numbers and at such great cost if not for their intended purpose of delivering nuclear weapons.