All industrial users pay lower, because they're able to apply economies of scale and locate themselves in places with lower power costs. Some of them are big enough that the utilities will build power lines and plants specifically to make electricity cheaper. It's not just a matter of "oh, they're rich, so we'll charge them less."
I do understand the basics of how this works but big and/or business is directly subsidized by taxpayer and rate payer at every corner. It is getting tiring seeing this clown show when large swathes of population living hand to mouth, month in, month out.
You would think this would make people realize where the money is going ;)
That’s the true point. How much is this really helping? I know as a private company they can do what they want but we need medical care, food security, and housing security. Nobody seems to give a rat’s ass about being the Tony Stark of public or cheap housing. The things we truly need are not mystical ecosystem locking Jarvis’s, but plain old reliable social services and other public services to lower the daily strain on the individual worker.
I use AIs for a variety of productive purposes. You may not, and that's fine, but that's just you. You can't dismiss anything that you personally don't have a use for as "wasteful."
I use NFTs for a variety of productive purposes. You may not, and that's fine, but that's just you. You can't dismiss anything that you personally don't have a use for as "wasteful."
I wasn't. I pointed out that no significant blockchains used GPUs (especially not Ethereum, the main NFT-supporting blockchain, which has transitioned to proof-of-stake instead of proof-of-work). That puts them outside the question of "wastefulness" altogether, and irrelevant to the subject at hand.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. The comment I responded to said:
We really need to tax energy used by GPU-burning projects differently. AI training, blockchain, whatever. Such a wasteful endeavour.
And I pointed out that blockchain doesn't use GPUs any more. NFTs weren't even mentioned specifically. Then the thread went further into discussing AI specifically, not even blockchain at that point, and you jumped in to say "people still use nfts". It was almost a non-sequitur.
I'm not saying anything about NFTs. You don't need to jump in and "defend" them.
But NFTs aren't wasteful. They're run on a proof-of-stake blockchain, no big computing power is used to back them. Your point about NFTs is false, I didn't mention NFTs in the first place, I don't see the relevance of any of this.
What exactly are they "wasting?" Ethereum switched to proof-of-stake on 15 September 2022. If you are still criticizing NFTs for their environmental impact you're a year and a half out of date.
You didn't answer the question. What exactly are they wasting? And what does this have to do with AI at this point, anyway? You jumped in with this NFT thing and I still fail to see the relevance.
You know, The Infinite Monkey Theorem states that if you chain a room full of monkeys to typewriters and let them all beat the keys at random, for an infinite amount of time, they will . . . eventually . . . through sheer random chance . . . produce the comple works of William Shakespeare. Maybe in 10 trillion years or so. THIS is current state of “AI.”
What Musk is proposing is like building an army of very expensive, very wasteful fusion-powered robots to beat the monkeys in the hope that the monkeys will work just a little bit faster.
that is to illustrate the vastness of infinity not the efficacy of monkeys
assuming one infinite monkey:
sonnet 18 has 592 characters- or a chance of 4.3x10^-848
10 trillion is ^-13 for reference.
And the universe is not even 14 billion years old.
And the ^-848 was 14 lines, a onehundredth of a single percent of the complete works.
However, it’s infinite monkeys, so the time it would take is effectively how every long it takes for one monkey to type that many lines. A few days? A week? In an infinite monkey cage it’s done at the first attempt: that’s the size of infinity.
All that to say, to replace that in power, if you converted all the mass in the universe to energy, and all the time until it’s heat death and could combine them into one machine: probably not enough to clear Titus Andronicus.
H100 isn’t $40, it’s $40,000. You’re making the Bloomberg Mistake: it costs $4,000,000,000 - four billion.
I can’t wait to see what clownshoes nonsense way he absolutely fucks this one up, but that’ll take a lot of liquidity he probably doesn’t have access to unless he gets the $45bn Tesla payout.
xAI just finished up a funding round worth $6bn, he doesn’t need to use his own money. It’s the usual bunch of VC funds: Fidelity Sequoia, Kingdom Holdings (that’s a Saudi fund).
Want to do a startup with me? I am thinking of a fleet of AI powered autonomous ice cream trucks, that can target where the demand is via social media and weather patterns.
Would like to get $400 million for our first round of funding…
I’m not the one committing libel my dude. You clearly can’t back up your feelings. You could have just mentioned something like FSD but apparently it’s easier to lash out.
While this wasn’t treated as fraud, Musk did lose his $55 billion bonus as deemed an insider job, where Musk controlled the board to the detriment of other shareholders. Here (Denmark) we had a similar case in principle but by a majority shareholder (although much smaller), that resulted in 7 year jail time for the CEO/Stock majority holder that did it.
Because he’s the pride and token of US (and their greenwashing). AND the US already poured too much of the taxpayers’ money into SpaceX & Tesla. To announce that they basically got granny-scammed by one loudmouth would be to destroy your international cred.
Makes very little sense to downvote this, there are several points where Musk could go to jail. Both regarding fraud towards investors and also customers.
Probably the most obvious case is that Musk claimed in 2019 it would be possible to earn money on owning a Tesla, because it would be able to be used as a robo taxi by 2020.
But Full self driving required for Robo Taxi is still nowhere near ready.
He also claimed that Tesla would NOT depreciate like other cars, because they are the most future proof cars you can buy.
But Tesla cars have since depreciated faster than almost any other car, in part because of Tesla price reductions, and in part because the promises came to nothing.
There could also be situations considering Hyperloop, where he promised faster and cheaper public transport, and that it was actually easy to make. But the projects he has accepted all came to nothing.
There may be cases on his promises every year since 2016 that Tesla cars would be capable of FSD next year.
He has also made wildly exaggerated promises about SpaceX, that may constitute fraud towards investors. Starting a Mars base 2022, and manned missions 2024, I don’t recall any SpaceX Mars missions.
People have invested their pensions on these false claims, and at some point, I have no doubt they will result in lawsuits, at least some of them.
Thanks much for this. Frankly it’s the Stochastiv Terrorism (buying twitter, banning accounts handpicked by the Andy Gno type, iirc, promoting anti-freedom-from/of-gender types, promoting zionists and anti-semites (but I repeat myself)…the general trend of amplifying danger for folks who whom the world is already primed to scapegoat or antagonize. It’s harmed journalism and is moving the electoral overton window to the far-right.
Yes it does seem the far right is doing better than they should be, this is unfortunately also the case in Europe. And it has very much to do with systematic control and manipulation of both normal media and social media by the 1%.
Yeah, but that’s already priced in. Anyone wanting to get on the Nvidia train for the AI push is a few years too late. Honestly, I expect it to be overpriced, with AI hype boosting it over the value it should have.
I think maybe you meant to link to AI Winter (which that link has a link to down at the bottom) as that article doesn't really support your point (that people within AI acknowledge it has hype cycles) at all, there's nothing about AI directly in it, although it does serve a refutation that 'hype cycle' means it'll go away; if that's what you meant your sentence was a bit odd.
the citation is because the only way you could claim ai isn't in a hype cycle at the moment is if you don't know that that's a defined term within tech spaces
Add comment