Clearly AI is worthy of public investment, but given the capture of this administration by tech interests, how can we be sure that public AI funding isn't just handouts to the president's cronies?
To the extent that further improvements to AI are either snake oil or just hard to monopolise on, doing everything else first is of course the best idea.
Even though I'm more on the side of finding these things impressive, it's not at all clear to me that the people funding their development will be able to monopolise the return on the investment - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_of_Columbus etc.
Also: the way the biggest enthusiasts are talking about the sectoral growth and corresponding electrical power requirements… well, I agree with the maths for the power if I assume the growth, but they're economically unrealistic on the timescales they talk about, and that's despite that renewables are the fastest %-per-year-growth power sector and could plausibly double global electrical production by the early 2030s.
The major question is: at what point will unaddressed climate change nullify these economic gains and make the fact that anyone worried about them feel silly in retrospect?
Or put another way, will we even have the chance collectively enjoy the benefits of that work?
- To what extent AI will actually be helpful in solving the climate crisis?
- To what extent the power generation growth fueled by AI will be critical to solving the climate crisis, and conversely, how badly we'll be screwed without it?
"Degrowth" is not an option. It hasn't been for a long time now. We can't just "social solution" our way out this problem anymore.
Electricity + home heating + cars is not 100%, but cutting emissions in half means you double the time before reaching any given threshold. For many problems the last 10% is the most challenging but we get 10x as long to solve it and 10x as long to implement mitigation strategies.
That’s what makes climate change critical, the next year is more important than what happens 10 or 20 years from now.
However, doing so requires ramping up electricity production and storage.
Add heating for buildings + hot water + industrial processes that can use electricity instead of fossil fuels alongside indirect effects like methane leaks from pipelines and drumroll.
We can get to ~50% reduction while saving money over using fossil fuels.
Too many AI accelerationists are treating these questions as foregone conclusions, which seems like an enormously dangerous bet without a clearer pathway to a truly beneficial outcome.
It may very well be that some form of AI (which form? hard to say - probably not LLMs) are a part of the solution. It may just as well be that they are not. But when building software, the age old advice to “start with the problem, not the solution” comes to mind.
The number of engineers I’ve worked with over the years (I’ve been one of them) who are convinced that the feature they’re building is the right thing to build, only to realize later that it doesn’t solve a problem people care about…is a very large number.
Regarding degrowth, I’m not advocating for it. With that said, that will be the unwanted result forced on us by the realities of the environment if we can’t put a lid on the climate issue.
This is not helpful. There are many reasons degrowth won't generally help humanity, but the benefits are particularly aplicable to western nations and their diplomatic relations. Certainly many western nations can bear degrowth without significant loss in quality of life. The wealthy just gotta take a significant cut to their waistlines.
> We can't just "social solution" our way out this problem anymore.
This certainly seems to be the liberal solution. Short of evicting them from our society what better choices do we have?
The people qualified to fix global warming aren't the same people qualified to work on ML.
And it's corollary: something being in the news or social media means everyone else has stopped working on other problems and is now solely working on whatever that headline's words say.
I've worked with hundreds of Data Scientists and every one had the ability to work on different problem areas. And so they were working on models to optimise truck rollouts or when to increase compute for complex jobs.
If as a society we placed an increased emphasis on efficiency and power consumption we would see a lot more models being used in those areas.
The problem is we don't want to do it.
I don’t understand this line of reasoning - it’s like saying “you’re not allowed steam engines until you drain all of your mines”. It’s moralistic, rather than pragmatic.
I think it's safe to call it a rhetorical fallacy because its underlying premise implies humanity can somehow only focus on a very finite number of things at once and that funds directed to 'your thing' would somehow otherwise be directed to 'their thing' which is even more absurd.
2. Inevitable AI winter
3. Keep running the plants, clean energy achieved, stop burning coal, global warming solved
1. Plan to build atomic power plants sufficient to supply electricity needs for projected future AI megaprojects.
2. Build the AI megaprojects first, because of fallacies related to sunk costs, urgency, and unwillingness to let the pyramid scheme collapse.
3. Never complete the nuclear plants, never get the pot of gold at the end of the AI rainbow, and pump a couple hundred million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in the mean time.
These scales use energy usage as the measure of progress which you are saying is proof that reducing energy use is reducing progress.
I'd love for individuals to set their own limit, ideally one that pushes them a bit to step out of the endless chase for comfort and convenience that we're all stuck in. I definitely don't want a centrally planned and enforced limit though, that's never going to achieve the goals people would actually want.
Our current use of electricity per capita, at least in the west, is ridiculously unsustainable if we aren't willing to keep abusing fossil fuels as an efficient store and source of energy.
I'm a for reducing our impact, but we have to stop kidding ourselves with the pipe dream that we just need the right source of energy to be able to grow our energy use per capita indefinitely.
It can equally be argued that efficiency of use of power is a bellwether of societal advancement, since wasting it will always be easier than making efficient use of it.
Case in point, few people realize that humanity reached 1.9 on the Kardashev/Sagan scale (EG, we output more power than the entire Trappist star that exoplanet enthusiasts have been so excited to colonize) for 39 brief nanoseconds on October 30, 1961. But that certainly didn't make us an entire Kardashev rung more civilized for the same brief moment as we erased another huge portion of our natural environment.
At best its a needle in a haystack approach, and one that seems to toss out methodical, reasoned science in favor of a blunderbuss.
The absolute dollar value might seem high, because we're working with the budget of not just a country but the wealthiest country, but as a percentage it is quite low. You can certainly pull funds from other areas too, like the military, which also greatly benefit from such research endeavors.
Even if these were exclusively non-weapons and non-military based technologies being developed it'd be naive to not recognize that the best military defense is to stop a war before it happens. That comes through many avenues, but notably the development of new technologies, especially those that benefit people as a whole (e.g. medicine or see the Taiwan strategy). But even then, it would also be naive to think that the same technology couldn't be adapted to military uses. Anything can be a weapon if you use it wrong enough.
But note that we're also seeing a reduction in federal research funding. We're also seeing less fundamental research and these types of problems need a strong pipeline through the classic TRL scale[0]. I think you'll find some of that discussion over in yesterday's thread about Bell Labs. The pipeline doesn't work if you don't take risks and are rushing. You need a fire under your ass but too hot and you get burned. It's easy to be myopic in today's settings, and that's not a great idea for an organization who needs to have an outlook in terms of decades and centuries (i.e. government) as opposed to the next election cycle or next quarterly earnings report.
Mind you, we've done these things before. Both the Space Race and Manhattan Project. At the height of the Space Race NASA's budget was over 4.41% of the federal budget[2]. I'm not sure what percent the Manhattan Project's budget was, but it is very clear that this is A LOT cheaper than what actual war costs[3]. We're talking about less than a month of war costs. Remember, we spent over a $750bn over in Iraq[4]. The question is not if we have the money, but what we want to spend it on. Personally I'd rather stuff like this than bombing people. Frankly, you can eat the cake too, as it makes it cheaper to bomb people as well...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43957010
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project#Cost
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
what are some examples of 'hardly' ?
I assume "AI" in contemporary articles, especially as it pertains to investments, means "Generative AI, especially or exclusively LLMs."
> Clearly computer networking is worthy of public investment, but given the capture of this administration by military industrial interests, how can we be sure that public networking funding isn't just handouts to the president's cronies?
Our country's tight relationship between the government, military, academia, and industrial has paid off repeatedly, even if it has some graft.