Bugs have existed since before AI, though. It's remarkable how bad a lot of very successful software has always been.

I feel like usage of AI alone should be enough to uncap it, so long as AI companies do the predictable thing and steal everything from everyone.

There are thousands of people figuring out how to make AI better for their particular thing. Way more than that walking the AI through taking things from problem to solution.

For many, it's about water.

There's an 11 gigawatt cluster going in near Pantex. If they use evaporative cooling, they could use hundreds of millions of gallons of water per day... sucking it from an aquifer that gets replenished at the rate of millimeters per year, and was already being massively depleted. Without that aquifer's water, this region is dead.

They claim they won't use evaporative cooling, but... they'd save a lot of money if they did... until the water ran out.

Texan Republican statesmen are fighting it. Oil money, farm/ranch money, etc., are all fighting it. People who have historically been ride-or-die for Trump. These are the people he's threatening to treat as traitors.

I'm as pro-AI as a person can be... you can read my comments here. But, this build-out is wildly irresponsible - incredibly poor civic engineering.

For me, the primary mechanism for learning is doing projects.

And, doing projects in domains I'm unfamiliar with (and those I am) is massively sped up by AI.

I learn to do these projects with AI - it's different than learning to do it without AI, and I don't learn some steps I otherwise would, because AI can do those.

But, I start and finish and use and polish so many more projects in so many more domains, with AI, than I could without.

And, starting and finishing projects is the point for me, not learning obscure stuff that doesn't help there, so, I don't feel like I've missed out on much. You might look down on it, but, if I have AI and you don't, I will bet on me to finish a project before you, better than you, in almost any field where we have similar levels of experience.

IDK about frontier-pushing-pursuits, though. I've written algorithms by hand that I doubt AI ever would have, in its current state... but, then, at least a few of those I'd given up on, for lack of time, and when AI came along, I was able to go back and have it finish them. But, for me, the work wasn't the goal, or even my own accomplishment therein - I just wanted the result. If your motivations differ, you might not find AI as fucking awesome as I do.

Sure, you can be much more productive writing essays for example if you have AI write them. Homework of course is much faster and easier if ChatGPT does it for you. All of these things were possible even pre-AI by paying someone else to do things for you (though in some cases it would be considered cheating, but if we set that aside). You’ll definitely blow anyone out of the water who studies or writes for themselves. I also totally get that the productivity gains are so attractive you don’t mind not learning some or all of it. But we are talking about knowing and learning things. Or at least that’s what I thought the thread was about.

"If I should really WANT to answer the foolish question you have just asked, or any of the other questions you have been asking me, let me remind you that I have a row of electric push-buttons on my desk, and by pushing the right button, I can summon to my aid men who can answer ANY question I desire to ask concerning the business to which I am devoting most of my efforts. Now, will you kindly tell me, WHY I should clutter up my mind with general knowledge, for the purpose of being able to answer questions, when I have men about me who can supply any knowledge I require?"

- Henry Ford

This is roughly my point. The moment the AI was able to do things for me, those things which it could do became trivia. I never had a taste for trivia. I still fill my days with learning and knowledge... the things I must learn and know to do my work and run my business well. I am growing faster with AI than I could without - it's allowed me to expand my purview while narrowing my focus. No less learning, just a different shape of it.

So, to me, the argument that "AI doesn't help you learn" completely misses the point. AI can help you learn, if you use it to and apply yourself, but also, AI can allow you to accomplish without filling your mind with "general knowledge" - not the high value stuff that is your business, but the low level stuff that was incidental.

Like random bird facts though?

Yeah, wherever there's curiosity, dive in. I feel like curiosity-driven education is probably the best kind. Well, curiosity, or necessity.

It does, though. Whether or not they take advantage of it... "You can lead a horse to water..."

You've got to admit, it feels different when you think it's grass roots, but was funded.

But then, even if it's them in their own skin, you think it's the algorithm showing that for you, when it's showing stuff for them to you.

It's weasels all the way down.

Is it any more surprising than other forms of marketing, like commercials that force themselves in between you and what you actually want to watch?

To me, yes.

After all the delivery is different.

With traditional advertising you're being sold a fantasy. The advertisment is usually produced so you're self-inserting yourself into the production. So when you're seeing the fit and good looking cowboy smoking a Marlboro... You subconsciously think: that's who I wanna be, and consequently may be more likely to buy it.

Influencer marketing is however inherently contextualized to the para social relationship between the viewer and the creator. The people that buy the product do so because "their" creator told them about it.

At least that's been the feeling I've got on every sponsorship pitching to date. It's aimed at people that want to get closer to the Creator. At least in their head.

Easy. Both would be protected* from mean words under this law, if they were in same jurisdiction.

* not that you couldn't say them, but you could get fined if you do

Same.

Reminds me of this cartoon: https://imgur.com/life-before-google-q0eP1Rg

__

"Life Before Google: A Short Story"

dog: I just thought of something I'd like to know more about.

rabbit: That's a damn shame.

THE END

Do data centers compare to the human population going from 2 billion to 8 billion over the past 100 years? Or, are they just a drop in the ocean?

Oh, they're more than a drop in the ocean for sure. Which doesn't mean there's not other things to address, where population is definitely not the main problematic factor, but consumerism is (and throwaway culture). This kind of whataboutism is fallacious, you can do better.

EDIT: As a small anecdotal point, any new human activity that is measured in GW of power consumption is not a drop in the ocean. Admitted, some of these data centers projects are "only" in the 100s MW scale, but all of this combined is increasing electricity consumption by a vast amount overall.

I looked (*asked AI), and AI data centers are projected to hit 850-920 TWh by 2027, if you count the energy required to produce all of the buildings and equipment. This is about 3% of global electricity consumption, or 0.5% of global energy (counting fuels, etc., outside of electricity).

So, yeah, that's a lot.

Also, there are at least a few data centers popping up around me (11 GW Fermi, > 1 GW Crusoe). I live in a desert, and water is scarce, and what's used is mostly non-renewable (pumped from an aquifer), and these data centers evaporate water at an alarming rate.

So... yeah, that's pretty significant... much more so locally than globally, but globally, too.

Global electricity consumption is up about 600% since 1970. So, that 2027 projection of 3% of global in 2027 is equivalent to about 20% of all electricity consumed in 1970. A fair amount, for sure.

IDK if it's worth 3% of global electricity consumption. I know I'd be happy to spend that percentage of my own home's electricity on it, for what it does for me, and I think the world would be better for it. The alternative is accomplishing far less... easily halving my productive output (10x is my honest estimation of productivity boost from AI). I do not believe in the value of my labor, I believe in the value of the product thereof. So, IDK... hopefully it's not a zero sum game, and AI (or motivated people with AI) can help it all pan out.