top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 258 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Gotta hand it to the fossil fuels industry, they got what they wanted and their propaganda worked.

And now Americans have a janky grid, slower / more expensive transportation, and bigger power bills.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 134 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    At least we are free*

    *Terms and conditions apply

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 109 points 1 year ago (2 children)
    1. Be rich
    2. Be white
    3. Be male
    4. Be "Christian"
    5. Be straight
    6. just kidding be rich
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Capitalism doesn't solve for society, it solves for capital.

    There is no profit in making the world a better place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    AI is not the panacea they're making it out to be. This article is attempting to influence readers to support American AI business models to 'complete' with China. Except that AI doesn't make my job easier and is very bad for the environment.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Given that part of my job is evaluating applicants' ability to do the job, and given that LLMs are very good at answering the sort of questions many people ask in interviews, AI is making my job significantly harder.

    If someone could make a prompt that actually made an LLM write good code, I wouldn't have nearly as much of an issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    It's only made worse by the people who treat it like the Master Computer from Star Trek, claim that it can solve all the problems, and thus attempt to shove it into anything and everything.

    It's baffling why my notepad needs to be hooked up to an LLM in the first place. It's a notepad, for quick scribbling. If people want to write something serious in it, there are far better things for that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Don’t worry. They’ll just ask AI about the grid and it will tell them how great it is.

    Edit: or it’ll say FEED ME MORE!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 72 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yeah. Kind of amazing that for all of their America first bullshit rhetoric, Republicans have consistently and routinely neglected our infrastructure to focus time and money on gays, immigrants, and giving out blowies to billionaires

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 70 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Conservatism is collapsing into irrelevance as a long term commitment.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 34 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 86 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    renowned expert in Chinese technology and founder of the media company Tech Buzz China, [Rui Ma]

    Is the person they’re talking about who is “stunned” at how super double awesome China is at powering AI.

    Ffffffffffffffuck this.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Eastern European born American guy who is living at eastern Europe right now.

    I don't know about china, but a lot of things in the country of my birth are a lot better than USA. Energy grid and energy pricing is one of those.

    I got back to country of my birth because my parent got dementia. I'm seriously considering permanently staying here. It has its drawbacks. But a lot of things are also a lot better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I like how Americans propaganda themselves - china doesnt even have to anything as Americans will gladly put them on a pedestal to spite themselves.

    Crazy how apparent this is on TikTok especially. People with LGTBQ flags are salivating about China while their flags are literally censored there

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 98 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Turns out stubborn contrarianism and anti-science bias are not viable philosophical foundations for progress; what a surprise.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 81 points 1 year ago (20 children)

    The race to have the magic box that tells you lies that you want to hear while also consuming incredible amounts of resources...why is this a race again?

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The telling lies part is not good, but I think the dream of AI is a servant (or slave) with unlimited potential that can solve, until now, unsolvable problems. Cure for cancer, sure that will be $10k a pill. Eternal life? Sure that will be 1 million dollars a years for all eternity. Robot army to protect you? Top of the list.
    Question I have is, is the AI we see the same AI the teck bros see? Is there a public interface that is made to appear a little buffoonish so the masses can laugh it off, but the real interface is much much better?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Those things are being solved by other forms of AI, not LLMs. AlphaFold is about the most useful thing AI has done so far and it's not a chatbot.

    We get access to entertainment AI, but there could be different forms of AI in use in medical science that have nothing to do with image or text generation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    AlphaFold's success seems to be largely linked to its use of attention-based architecture, similar to GPT, i.e. the architecture used by LLMs. Beyond that, they are both building on work in machine learning and statistics, so I don't think they are nearly as independent as you are making out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, but LLM innovation now is not in more clever architectures, but rather larger and larger models with more training data.

    I don't hate the existence of LLMs but rather how they're being shoehorned everywhere and how much power is being spent for just a little bit better results.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I think the dream of AI is a servant (or slave) with unlimited potential that can solve, until now, unsolvable problems

    Yeah, that's the hype. The reality is that with current LLM tech, it's a slightly more capable text-prediction algorithm.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    I really don't understand this perspective. I truly don't.

    You see a new technology with flaws and just assume that those flaws will always be there and the technology will never progress.

    Like. Do you honestly think this is the one technology that researchers are just going to say "it's fine as-is, let's just stop improving it"?

    You don't understand the first thing about how it works but people like you are SO certain that the way it is now is how it will always be, and that because there are flaws developing it further is pointless.

    I just don't get it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    I've actually worked professionally in the field for a couple of years since it was interesting to me originally. I've built RAG architecture backends for self hosted FOSS LLMs, i've fine tuned LLMs with new data, And I've even took the opposite approach where I embraced the hallucinations as I thought it could be used for more creative tasks. (I think this area still warrants research). I also enjoy TTS and STT use cases and have FOSS models for those on most of my devices.

    I'll admit that the term AI is extremly vauge. It's like saying you study medicine, it's a big field. But I keep coming to the conclusion that LLMs and predictive generative models in general simply do not work for the use cases that it's being marketed for to consumers, CEOs, and Governments alike.

    This " AI race" happened because Deepseek was able to create a model that was more or less equivalent to OpenAI and Anthropic models. It should have been seen as a race between proprietary and open source since deep seek is one of the more open models at that performance level. But it became this weird nationalist talking point on both countries instead.

    There are a lot of things the US is actually in a race with China in. Many of which are things that would have immediate impact. Like renewable energy, international respect, healthcare advances, military sufficiency, human rights, food supplies, and afordible housing, just to name a few.

    The promise of AI is that it can somehow help in the above categories eventually, and that's cool. But we don't need AI to make improvements to them right now.

    I think AI is a giant distraction, while the the talk of nationalistic races is just being used for investor buy in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    the the talk of nationalistic races is just being used for investor buy in

    Even more, it's being used to milk the taxpayers for more subisidies that get translated (in a very lossy way) into more executive bonuses.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    There's a lot of indication that LLMs are peaking. It's taking exponentially more compute and data to get incremental improvements. A lot of people are saying OpenAI's new model is a regression (I don't know, I haven't really played with the new model much). More foundational breakthroughs need to be made, and these kinds of breakthroughs are often the result of "eureka" moments which can't be manifested by just throwing more money at the problem. It's possible it will take decades before someone discovers a major breakthrough (or it could be tomorrow).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    You see a new technology with flaws and just assume that those flaws will always be there and the technology will never progress.

    Say you start with a prototype for a perpetual-motion machine. Then those flaws will always be there and the technology will never progress.

    It is intrinsic in some technologies tthat they're a dead end. That doesn't mean all of them are, but some are just worthless crap and throwing more good money after bad isn't going to change that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -12 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    Have you considered that if the worlds two superpowers are dead certain on this being an important area that they are willing to throw coutless billions of investment into, that they might know more than you do?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Governments fail to implement incredibly obvious, easy, and proven solutions all the time so yeh they can be pretty dumb. Not to mention historical examples of governments (paricularly the UK when it was a world superpower) investing their entire economies in nigerian prince tier scams.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 63 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    I don't really give a shit about the AI race and I genuinely hope that we lose it, because I feel like being a winner in that "industry" is inherently unsustainable.

    The AI hype is so infuriatingly frustrating.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Further, fear mongering about China's data center/powergrid infrastructure superiority is also the PERFECT excuse techbros need to rationalize building data centers in parts of the US that are in desperate shortage of water for human beings and with precarious electrical grids that are ready to fail in the middle of the next heatwave.

    The US is essentially in a second Civil War and this will be one of the main methods in which people are killed, i.e. purposefully setting up the conditions for people to die in a heat wave and have no water so they are desperate... and the only way people in the US are going to stomach it is if they have been truly convinced they have to accept these brutal conditions "because we are hopelessly behind China and we can't afford to stop building data centers!!".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I just want anyone else to win. All the things. I want US Hegemony to end. At any cost. If that's AI then good.

    I hate this country the way Saw Gerrera hates the empire.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I hope we loose it so we can get humbled. But if we loose, knowing how we are, we'll likely invent a reason to go to war and steal their talent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    I have found one use for generative AI that I have liked. I've thrown it at aggravating searches for me.

    Use case example: I stopped traveling across the country and got a job at one location. It's across the city. I'd like to find an electric bike to get there. The location is 12 miles away as the crow flies. Unfortunately my city is absolute crap at any kind of non-car transportation so it needs to get myself up to 40 mph at minimum. Honestly if I'm going that speed, I'd like a scooter like the a burgman. Trouble is "scooter" runs the gambit from competing to motorcycles like the Burgman, to little ones like the Vespa, and stand up ones like you see dumped all over cities downtown. Electric motorcycles start getting into "I might as well buy a new motorcycle" prices.

    Alright, I do a search for electric scooter, I get all standing scooters. I've attempted changes and maybe find a sitting one that is made for not getting over 25 mph. Finally getting frustrated I remembered one of my younger coworkers talking about using AI for searches, fine... ten minutes later I had a series of results of bike that fit my criteria as well as small little dealers across the city that DuckDuckGo nor Google bothered to pull up, and that's with me specifically asking for links because I didn't want made up bullshit.

    Now if we get to the point of AI becoming overlords, I'm sure I'm going to be among the first against the wall because the first couple searches of it not getting things right involved me calling it a dumbshit so...

    So yea... that's my territory of using an AI, it's a better search engine for weird esoteric shit... I kind of wish it wasn't an app or a website because if it was a physical device I'd have it next to a hammer which I guess shows how much I trust it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I understand you're frustrated about the AI race. That's an excellent point, and it deserves careful consideration. First, in considering the AI race we need to consider what AI is...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago (27 children)

    The first country to adopt LLMs for everything is the one that will collapse first. This is a race where the winners never start and at best stop before they reach the end.

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (26 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (24 children)

    Maybe. Could also be that humans never invent anything that comes close to a biological brain. Either because we simply aren't smart enough, or because civilization regresses before we get there. And there's several trends going on currently which could cause civilization to regress. For example, climate change and declining birth rates (While we could set up an economic system that can deal with a shrinking and aging population, our current one cannot).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Fasciam and religion are bigger threats than 'declining birth rate', that one's just billionaire propaganda. Stop repeating it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    So, why are declining birth rates not a problem?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Why are they? Fewer people, fewer mouths to feed, more value on labor, more natural resources and real estate for the rest of us.

    We cant grow forever. Dropping total population in the most ethical way then keeping things steady seems like the most nonviolent cool way to do this.

    Tor fucks sake there's like ten billion people we could keep everything we need going, easily, with half that.

    Anf imagibe if we actually valuee people instead of treating them like disposable garbage to throw away in poverty and wars! Wouldn't that be cool?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, but my point was that our current economic system can't deal with, not that we can't deal with it in general. Migrating away from the current system would require the powerful to give up their power, which they won't do willingly, even as the walls are closing in. (In fact, when it comes to global warming, the walls are closing in).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Systems adapt. Extrapolation based on current state is often fallacious.

    Migrating away from the current system would require the powerful to give up their power

    Implicit in that statement is a huge and largely unfounded assumption that there's only one possible future state, and that it's as you say it is.

    And, even if it means that the powerful are forced to give up power, well, that's happened before and it's not impossible that it'll happen again.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Because the big rationale for it being a problem is that GDP declines as population declines. But GDP is an aggregate measure that's dependent on population, so that's not a problem, it's a tautology.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    Wait, since when population is shrinking? And since when it's a bad thing too?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    I don't think it is shrinking globally, yet. But, some countries (e.g. South Korea) are in dire situations due to shrinking and aging population already.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Might be bad now but it leads to a better future. Infinite growth was always impossible, this is just the result of decades of mismanagement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    The future for S. Korea looks bleak, not better.

    I agree that infinite growth was always impossible, but in some countries birth rate is well below replacement rate (if they matched, population would be stable, not growing), and in many birth rate + immigration rate is also below replacement rate -- we are failing not at growth, but "mere" stability.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Idgaf about replacement rate. I don't want the old to be replaced. I want the economy to get smaller and for the wealth to be better distributed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Smaller economy is fine, I guess -- tho deflation has certainly caused problems in the past. Better distributed wealth is a shared goal. Depopulation, and other forms of Degrowth, are largely driven by eugenicist ideas and are neither necessary nor desirable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW8vkUY93i8

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children)

    You might notice I never once promoted any such depopulation ideas, simply that the natural negative growth trend as a result of highly educated populations is a good thing that we should not take any action against.

    We need less people, we don't need to make the number of people less: it happens on its own.

    If it were possible to make a nondiscrimatory policy against growth then that would be great, but we already saw attempts fail in places like China which resulted in skewed demographics. In 1994 in Cairo the UN met and decided the best answer was simply: Educate Women.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    We need less people

    No we don't. And, S. Korea in particular will need more people than they have available, soon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    They don't NEED more people, nowhere on earth NEEDS more people, as long as you have as few as 12 genetically distinct individuals then life will continue, and even if they did NEED people then theres lots of people all over the world who would love to migrate to SK.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Global warming is independent of population, emissions can be controlled without population controls.

    Yes, they do need more people, and immigration is a possible "solve", but right now they aren't getting the immigration necessary -- tho largely due to their own policies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Global Warming is NOT independent of population.

    The population growth almost perfectly aligns with climate change, and the top polluters on the planet are China despite having one of the lowest pollution per capita ratios.

    More humans = more environmental destruction

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Technically there should be a ratio of young to old to take care of all of the elderly, but IMO fuck'em it wasn't the young's choice to be born and suffer for the sake of the old.

    Lower population will make resource allocation easier and improve quality of life, and obviously is necessary to prevent further environmental damage. There will be momentary suffering for a brighter future.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Technically there should be a ratio of young to old to take care of all of the elderly

    That's a rule of thumb that assumes a lot of things about elderly people's need for care, how much that's funded by the young, productivity in how that care is provided, and a huge number of other variables.

    Lower population will make resource allocation easier and improve quality of life, and obviously is necessary to prevent further environmental damage.

    The environmental damage is more to do with bad choices about the mix of technology currently used to power the economy, and the poor ratio of GDP per unit of energy consumed. So I dispute that "obviously."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    The environmental damage is more to do with bad choices about the mix of technology currently used to power the economy, and the poor ratio of GDP per unit of energy consumed.

    Your opinion runs counter to every single dataset to ever exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    we considered attacking you, but couldn't think of a way to ruín anything worse than you already had. Every idea we came up with, you had already done, but worse. I spent two years writing software to take down the grid in texas, and another two getting it into your systems. Then you just did it all manually, and some nazi asshole shot the infected substation until it blew up a month later! Fuck you, i liked this job. I went to college for this shit. You have ruined me. What the fuck am i gonna do now?

    -some chinese saboteur

  • source
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That level of cushion is unthinkable in the United States, where regional grids

    Yeah, capitalism will resolve everything by being greedy. Electricity is not and will never be a merchandise. It's a basic human need and a natural state monopoly.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    51 comments in c/technology@lemmy.zip view that post
    10 comments in c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se view that post