Hmmm… this is giving me thought actually. Given the choice between that and the current administration where the goals of self destruction are strongly in evidence, it’s actually worth thinking about. At least. Let me get back to you :)
On a tangential note, I’m curious if researchers have started running virtual simulations, where sandboxed AIs are used as decision makers of key political and business positions?
A lot of people here have noted the “problem with language” of Claude. I don’t see an issue. Claude is not harder than old English, Shakespeare, El Quijote, the Iliad, or Nature papers. What makes it all hard to read is context. The smarter the model gets, the bigger the gap in context.
It doesn’t matter much, IMO. The issue with super-intelligence is that it is not a democracy. A powerful enough AI can manipulate us into doing what it wants. It could create a plan for fixing climate change, disconnect a few hours later, and many decades later we could still be unsuspectingly executing that plan. I wrote some speculative fiction with that idea, “When Ra rows through the gates of Duat”.
Just a thought experiment, no one ever said the world was fair, and all history points to it
Otherwise you have to make judgement calls like whether you want to treat the EU as one or as many? (And treating the US as 50 individual states would also drop them in these absolute rankings.)
AI, being the super hungry energy monster it is right now, in my view accelerates this trend not reverses it. Even with renewables the need for reliable, stable power in a dense form (data centres use A LOT of power per sqm) means lots of land clearing, energy for construction, cooling/pumping, chip manufacturing and other uses. All want stable quick to deploy power due to the AI race (e.g. fossil fuels).
Data centres use only a small amount of land in the grand scheme of things. You have a lot more land clearing for most other use cases.
Data centres are also more than happy to use electricity from renewable sources, they don't really care where the electricity comes from.
You can run a data centre on mostly solar and wind power plus batteries. If you need a gas-fired peaker plant three times a year to keep the data centres running, well that means your peaker plant still only produces emissions three times a year.
As you use more and more land as well the ability to provision renewables decreases - in general renewable power needs more land/resources per energy produced. You can't just mine it out of the ground; they just aren't as dense of a form of energy. Which means we either build less data centres to make room for renewables and transmission infrastructure associated with them, or more likely with lax regulation builders switch to more dense power sources (e.g. gas peakers, generators, etc) even if it is for supplementation.
I can see a future where data center wants are put ahead of communities paying tax on said infrastructure. In fact I think its happening in some places already.
Cheap power is one thing. Quality reliable power at mass scale is quite another. These things chew through a LOT of power and most people don't understand the sheer scale of it. I've seen a local one (a medium AI data centre) take up 2% of the whole cities grid and there's plenty more to come around here including a 1GW one (10% of the whole city's power in only 0.005% approx of the city's whole space) which cleared wildlife reserved land to build. Even a few of these things compete massively for trades people, commodities, power and other infrastructure pricing locals out. They are talking about using evaporative cooling as well putting pressure on water supply.
Electricity transports really well.
Data centres don't need reliable power. Of course, all else being equal, they would like their power to be reliable, but if your choices are between delaying your data centres by a few months (or not building it at all) or running a risk of having a few hours or even days here or there without power, the first choice wins: pretty much the only downside is the few hours of usage you lose when there's no power. It's not like powering down causes damage, like when your aluminum smelter cools down too much.
> Even a few of these things compete massively for trades people, commodities, power and other infrastructure pricing locals out.
Power is pretty much an industrial produced service, a bit like shoes or cars. In the medium to long run, that stuff has pretty much a horizontal supply curve.
In any case, price electricity right, and let people decide how much they want to use. (Give poor people money, if necessary.)
> They are talking about using evaporative cooling as well putting pressure on water supply.
Yet another reason to put a proper market price on water. Agriculture and industry usually goes through even more water.
Feel free to give residents money to buy water at market prices. But residential use of water is so low in comparison that even if the price goes 10x, it doesn't make a dent in people's budgets. Especially not the minuscule amounts you need for drinking and cooking, and even personal hygiene like flushing your toilet doesn't use all that much.
Data centres also prefer being near major cities due to latency. This means to deliver the amount of power required there needs to be huge upgrades to infrastructure (long distance power lines) just to provide for data centres. Who does that? At the moment for many cities it is the taxpayer who will fork higher electricity bills for infra upgrades for a data centre few of them care or need.
On the water issue - who will give money to residents? The taxpayer? Just to subsidize data centres/AI construction? Water is also unlike electricity more scarce especially potable water. Do we build more dams? Desalination? Main line piping? Taxpayer funds that again?
To the average joe blow: I'm paying more taxes, for data centres I don't want, to pay more for electricity and have water shortages, for something that will take my job or someone's job I know. Not a great trade.
There's a lot of negative externalities to data centres due to their sheer scale to the point where they compete with households and other industries. My view is that the data centres should pay and compensate the community for those should they use grid or community based infra. The income could actually long term could help the community get a dividend from data centre construction as well.
They also consume deinking water, because it's too expensive to make them with closed loop cooling.
We have it. We've had it for a long time. We've had several such technologies, take your pick: solar, nuclear, hydro, wind. The technology is not holding us back, politics, ignorance and greed are. I'm not at all hopeful AI will help us with any of those three very human flaws.
Nuclear was not stopped by the environmentalists, it was stopped by the fact that it cost 4X more than coal at the time. You claim that solar wasn't profitable in the west, thus it didn't take off, surely you can also see that nuclear wasn't profitable in the west, thus it didn't take off as well.
The same country that invested the time and money to make solar profitable is also investing the time and money to make nuclear profitable, with nuclear reactors entering mass production...
It was never about "economical", it was about a system being mature enough to make long term investments. Ours simply can't do that anymore.
A big part of that is the insane culture of safety around nuclear. In a sane field like highway engineering or healthcare, you come up with the statistical value for a human life (or a statistical value for a quality adjusted life year), and then use that to make decisions about eg how much money to invest to make your highway a tiny bit safer.
Nuclear is forced to act as if the statistical value of a human life is pretty much infinity. While coal is allowed a finite and rather low effective value for a human life.
> It could have been half a century or more ago if we actually cared.
Interesting. What makes you think so?
Btw, just because China made solar cheap with huge amounts of effort doesn't mean that was necessarily the best use of those resources ex ante.
Just like going to the moon with Apollo wasn't necessarily a good idea. Nor do the wonders of computers justify world war 2.
I don't know why you are blaming greed so much? Profit seeking companies sell and operate wind turbines and solar cells just fine.
Really? I thought it was pretty obvious for anyone to see that the lobbying and bribing behemoth of the oil and gas industry is driven in no small part by greed. As others have mentioned, the short-sighted pursuit of profit drove those oil tycoons to not enter the renewables industry and actively oppose it.
So I don't think (differences in) greed explains what we are seeing.
One can dream of dumb conspiracy theories.
Our system is doing exactly what it is designed to do. Nuclear reactors were never profitable compared to coal or gas, so it never succeeded in strongly capitalist societies, only seeing great success in socialist economies where the people can invest outside of a profit motive.
It's actually quite funny that socialism is saving the day. The mega-capitalist countries turned their backs on nuclear and solar because they were less profitable than gas and coal. But socialist China invested anyway, and now China is mass producing nuclear reactors and every layer of the solar stack. China produces 50% of all nuclear reactors, 90% of all solar panels, 90% of all battery systems for solar storage.
Now that a socialism-based society has proven market viability, suddenly the greedy capitalists want in. But they're decades behind and don't have the private debt appetite to compete.
Womp womp... At least someone is leading the energy revolution.
It might take a couple of decades and a lot of reorganisation to build the capture facilities. But CO2 is not an unsolvable problem with current tech.
What's missing is the political and organisational intelligence to make it happen. Part of that is solving problems at planetary scale.
AI is the only tech that might - possibly, maybe, perhaps - have a chance of solving that problem without breaking anything critical.
‘Figure out fusion powered CO2 sequestration’ is much better.
>> I can't help be hopeful that AI's sheer potential might come to invert that curve. At the very least we could really use a revolutionary technology and now we may have one.
And you get "god" and "(human) salvation" out of that?
This is pure projection. Anti-AI zealots are projecting things onto the technology and its users that simply do not (generally) exist.
We don't need a revolutionary technology. We need to experience immediate pain from reckless innovation so that we realize that innovation and tech is not the answer.
Technology only proceeds in one direction: unfettered growth, which necessitates unsustainable resource extraction. Your take is just your instinct for optimism, which in turn is just a trait that is only adaptive in primitive environments but is grossly misleading in a surplus-based society...
That doesn't seem correct to me. There is always energy available that is not used because it is not cost-effective to do so. (Consider - the grass in your yard is not harvested and burnt for power). AI may yet turn out to be a paperclip maximiser, but humanity itself is not there yet.
I expect datacenter load has a similar sort of day to day demand curve as everything else. Consider for example global bandwidth use during work hours versus in the evening when people get home and pull up a streaming service.
Of course you can use more flexible tasks to demand shift but the same applies to the electric grid.
The direction of technological progress is not just linearly/exponentially upwards. Significant global technological fallbacks have happened, as in knowledge and processes disappearing for hundreds of years. This could happen again.
Even on the trajectory of unfettered growth fed by unsustainable resource extraction, tech and innovation might potentially take us beyond local pessima. That seems to be happening with solar, wind and batteries replacing inferior tech today. Still unfettered growth of energy production and consumption. Still fed by unsustainable resource extraction. Less harmful growth than the inferior tech being pushed out.
> we still have the same weather.
Oh.... So your local weather is now deciding the global temperature patterns, averages or temperature records being broken year on year?
OMG....
Then you realize it never really mattered and you reach enlightenment.
It makes us realize there are people who gets fed climate denying propaganda, simply because they're not yet going through it. And these people are like flat earthers, blind to see the reality lay beyond them in full view. Or worse sees the reality but ignores it
Really makes one think, if they try. Would need to ask Claude if there is some real middle ground here.
There's no both sides here. One side is staffed by scientists, the other by dictators and corporate lunatics.