71–80 of 129 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the public is expected to deal with higher prices after every data center build? The work can't be done in advance?
> the public is expected to deal with higher prices after every data center build? No. But the states that let companies put trillions of dollars of datacentre and power hardware in their borders will probably reap benefits from it for decades to come regardless of how AI pans out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the administration is allowing datacenters to be utilities and build their own power plants, nuclear or otherwise. the excess can be sold to the grid. it's really the only way forward. seems like a win/win.
The real win/win would be to require them to build enough solar to power the operation.
The most cost effective way to run a datacenter at some definition of "pedal to the metal", 24/7. This is not appropriate for solar, which is why these companies are looking into power sources that are most cost effective when they run pedal to the metal, 24/7, like nuclear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's really the only way forward. seems like a win/win. There is another way forward, which is not building these data centers, forcing AI companies to use power more efficiently, and use the excess energy production capacity towards the energy transition in order to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. It's not going to happen, at least not right now, but it's clearly what we ought to do. ChatGPT can wa…
I think you may be missing the whole national security part of the AI race. This isn't just about asking a computer what recipe you can cook tonight with the items in your fridge. In many ways it is similar to the race to build a nuclear bomb. We may individually not like that, but we might individually be best served to live in the nation that got there first.
It is, however, complete nonsense, and the next few years of failed promises on AGI will eventually bring people to their senses, if a market crash and sustained economic depression doesn't do that first. It would be funny if it wasn't going to cause suffering for millions of people, whether we succeed at AGI or not.
I _like_ AI, I find LLMs and many other aspects of useful, and I am optimistic for the long term prospects of AI. But the rush to try and get to AGI is completely out of control at this point, and the fallout from when the bubble pops will set AI, and our societies, back a long time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the administration is allowing datacenters to be utilities and build their own power plants, nuclear or otherwise. the excess can be sold to the grid. it's really the only way forward. seems like a win/win.
Oh nice, that basically solves the issue. I've been hearing horror stories of datacenters overloading existing grids and raising prices for the average person, If datacenters generate their own power that basically solves the issue. Out here in AZ, solar combined with battery would be perfect for datacenters.
If they do so cleanly otherwise they'll dump their externalities on the rest of us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We still need to fix the problem with powering these Datacenters.... Not really. We need to insulate consumers from the market that is solving and will solve that problem. That's a financial engineering and policy problem. America is good at the first. We're bad at the second. That implies state and local initiatives should take the lead. My proposal: one market for essential residential consumption, defined as the…
There should be a tenure element to power access. The reductio is a well-funded adversary should not be able to buy all the power in a region just because they are able to pay more. Our utilities are generally regulated, and have some mandate to provide power to residents. If a datacenter creates a sudden dislocation in the demand for power that causes massive unplanned CapEx by the utility, what is the argument in f…
What does this mean?
> what is the argument in favor of longtime residents having to pay for that CapEx?
Jobs and tax base. These benefit the middle class more than the poor, hence my redistribution proposal.
>The project will create approximately 800 permanent jobs For $50 billion? I think there's a serious problem here.
It’s Capex. Most home construction produces less than a single permanent job on average.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
12k a year out of your paycheck for an advanced Clippy "assistant"? Sorry, this is not plausible. Oh and by blue collar work do you mean done by walking talking robots? I bet you think we'll be flying cars to work w/in 5 years too huh. Oh yeah and when is your chatbot going to solve physics and cure cancer again? You ppl have lost your minds.
I don't think it requires robots. Although that's possible too. I think that HoloLens has a reasonable demonstration of how to assist blue collar work about 10 years ago (AFAIK it flopped). I would bet a dollar that similar technology augmented with LLMs could be useful to blue collar work.
We still need to fix the problem with powering these Datacenters....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should they be treated differently than any other customer?
If they are treated like every other customer, all of our energy bills go up the more data centers they build This is not a theoretical concern, it is happening already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN6BEUA4jNU