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

Higher usage limits for Claude and a compute deal with SpaceX

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 519 posts

Re: Higher usage limits for Claude and a compute deal with SpaceX

#491

Post by polski-g »

causal wrote: post #479
osiris970 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They pay property taxes. The best tax there is as of now (LVT when)

For a datacenter that generates billions, that is not much.

"The datacenter" doesn't generate billions. The computations performed inside might, but almost never is the datacenter owner the same person running the servers inside. The owner is just leasing space; selling electricity and cooling to a third-party company. Their margins (ie: taxable income) are thin because competition is high. A landlord's taxable income is not determined by his tenant's income.

Re: Higher usage limits for Claude and a compute deal with SpaceX

#492

Post by eli »

486sx33 wrote: post #458
Thrymr wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

xAI removed its illegal gas turbines and obtained permits for the others only after being sued by the Southern Environmental Law Center. They then built another unpermitted site (Colossus 2) across the state line in Mississippi, and they are being sued again. [0] "The company began operations at its first site, Colossus 1, in June of 2024 and used as many as 35 unpermitted gas turbines to power the facility. Despite…

They did not require permits at the time as they were portable Think transport trailer sized. If you use portable power for under 365 days a year, an epa permit was not required. They changed the rules on permitting after and xAI complied

Yes, I believe it's xAI's position that they were technically in compliance at the time. I don't know that a judge would agree. The new EPA rule is more of a clarification; they do not concede that point.

Re: Higher usage limits for Claude and a compute deal with SpaceX

#493

Post by danaw »

everfrustrated wrote: post #142
quinncom wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the reasons I refuse to use xAI’s models is because of the outsized negative environmental impacts of the methane gas turbines. Now I have to avoid Claude too.

You realize natural gas is one of the more environmentally friendly methods of generating power. Lots of work went into moving to natural gas generation to improve the environmental impact for electricity generation. This is nothing like burning coal.

as other have mentioned tons of portable generators are no where near as safe as power plants and these are built right next to people's homes with no oversight or regulation.

Re: Higher usage limits for Claude and a compute deal with SpaceX

#494

Post by niam »

dgfl wrote: post #473
Sammi wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this before. A datacenter and a starlink sattelite are not in the same ballpark of power usage and heat dissipation needs. The are orders of magnitude off from each other.

The point is that you don’t need to put a whole datacenter into a single satellite. You can put a single rack per satellite and have different racks communicate via antennas, laser links, or perhaps even wires since they’ll be launched in groups of 10-50 anyway. You could also dock them to each other, but that’s not necessarily needed.

I don't understand what makes these "datacenters" if they're distributed across satellites with WAN-esque interconnect.

Are we overloading the term "datacenter"? Or is it not overloaded but somehow able to achieve datacenter-like speeds / (tail) latency even when distributed across satellites?

Re: Higher usage limits for Claude and a compute deal with SpaceX

#495

Post by scottyah »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #464
scottyah wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is always so odd seeing how many internet people consider any new attempt that doesn't go immediately viral with success as a bad mark on someone's character.

If you're not able to see a whole slew of "bad marks" on Musk's character, then you haven't been paying much attention. It's not either/or - you can be be successful in some areas while being a childish twit and moron in others.

I think I've just seen many more fake/exaggerated "bad marks" than real ones so I've become bitter. He's definitely not been perfect, but the areas I see flaws (he can be extremely rude, some drug abuse, doesn't treat close/loved ones well, seems to lash out when getting too close to someone, can be very Ego driven and doesn't admit it until it's too late, constantly needs to be at war with someone) are always just passed over for "He's a LiTErAL NAzI" and "He is HOARDING all the MonEY because he's SO GreedY"- which are just so demonstrably false.

Overall though, to classify the work he's done and the impact on the world as unsuccessful is just insane. It's almost always from someone who hasn't even managed to lead a team of 10 through one project too.

Re: Higher usage limits for Claude and a compute deal with SpaceX

#496

Post by lijok »

ceejayoz wrote: post #490
lijok wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that’s sufficient for roughly 100 unoptimized DC grade H200s. Not efficient, and it doesn’t have to be, because the cooling system has 0 opex cost. And capex clearly can be made to wor

OK, so you've got a football-sized solar and radiator array to support 100 H200s. Why are we not building it on land again in some abandoned mall's parking lot?

Because it’s allegedly more expensive

Re: Higher usage limits for Claude and a compute deal with SpaceX

#497

Post by causal »

polski-g wrote: post #491
causal wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a datacenter that generates billions, that is not much.

"The datacenter" doesn't generate billions. The computations performed inside might, but almost never is the datacenter owner the same person running the servers inside. The owner is just leasing space; selling electricity and cooling to a third-party company. Their margins (ie: taxable income) are thin because competition is high. A landlord's taxable income is not determined by his tenant's income.

You are being pedantic to pretend you don't understand. It's tiring and unproductive.

At the end of the day, people are paying money to utilize the servers within the datacenter. That money is revenue. That revenue ought to be taxed by the state.

Re: Higher usage limits for Claude and a compute deal with SpaceX

#498

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #445
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep hearing about brand new data centers they want to create. Seems reasonable to go to sunny, enormous, business friendly Texas and surround the data center site with acres of solar panels, batteries, emergency gas, and whatever sized grid connection you can get approved immediately. If the DC is for training or text inference, latency seems irrelevant, so go where you can quickly plop down power.

Texas is actually absorbing a lot of the US's new generation capacity (though the grid there remains dirty) It's fraught to make a DC for a single purpose because it reduces the value of the DC. A DC that serves multiple purposes can handle other workloads. Moreover even if inference is slow, latency does still matter, and it costs quite a bit to light up net capacity (you still have to run fiber to an interconnect a…

I guess, but the amount of money getting thrown around is just stupid. Having to spend a few million to light up some more fiber is a drop in the bucket.

Supposedly some of the behind the meter gas turbines that have been getting installed are rated for a ten year service life. The DCs are burning them out in 10 months from rapid cycling. If they are willing to treat $10-100 million generators as disposable, cost seems irrelevant.

Re: Higher usage limits for Claude and a compute deal with SpaceX

#499

Post by jsnell »

lijok wrote: post #452
jsnell wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of that is incorrect. H100 rental prices are still as high as when the cards were brand new. The prices vastly exceed the power costs. In a world where power or DC permits are the current bottleneck those H100s would be getting retired in favor of Blackwells. But they aren't. They are instead being locked in for years long contracts.

Why exactly would the H100s get retired for Blackwells if specifically power and DC permits were the bottleneck?

Because they are >10x more power efficient.

If silicon were relatively abundant and power/DC space scarce, you'd get an order of magnitude more bang for the Watt by replacing the H100s with newer GPUs.

But nobody is doing that. Blackwells are being installed as additional capacity, not Hopper replacements.

So it is pretty clear that silicon is the primary bottleneck.

Re: Higher usage limits for Claude and a compute deal with SpaceX

#500

Post by Sammi »

dgfl wrote: post #473
Sammi wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this before. A datacenter and a starlink sattelite are not in the same ballpark of power usage and heat dissipation needs. The are orders of magnitude off from each other.

The point is that you don’t need to put a whole datacenter into a single satellite. You can put a single rack per satellite and have different racks communicate via antennas, laser links, or perhaps even wires since they’ll be launched in groups of 10-50 anyway. You could also dock them to each other, but that’s not necessarily needed.

Ok, but then what's the point? How is having a small amount of compute in space useful?
Post reply on HN