boplicity

The main thing is evaporative cooling is incredibly wasteful. The water should be returned to the system, if it's going to be used, and not sent into the atmosphere. This is especially important in regions with limited access to water, which, ironically, is where many data centers seem to be located.

The problem is if you spend the next 5 years building new fossil fuel capabilities, the economic payoff won't be for at least 10 to 15 years more years. We absolutely should not be burning natural gas at that point. Not only would it cause continued havoc on our environment, zero emissions alternatives are already extremely cost competitive in most parts of the world. We should spend the next 5 years, instead, building for the future, not sinking our money into assets that will only cause further harm without providing any real cost savings.

Large scale battery storage, by the way, is already a mostly solved problem, and possible to do at a cost competitive price.

It's become clear that when society suffers, they demand cheap fuel. There's no way around it. I don't see a path out of this: do you?

Politically, fossil fuels are in vogue. New pipelines, new capacity, lower prices -- all of these are being accelerated right now. There's no #$#$% hope that we'll stop extracting carbon from the ground. It's just not going to happen.

They're basically Flock Cameras, except they could appear anywhere. Nobody wants mobile surveillance potentially brought into any room.

I'm no expert, but I think the future is more about extremely low latency and low power chips with LLMs etched directly onto them. You can create specialized chips that function as "neurons" in a larger system, generating the needed reactions with a very clearly defined set of constraints.

Abolishing copyright would make it much harder for smaller players to protect their interests. Their original work would be gobbled up by the big players, and made easily available under the umbrella of a large corporations pre-existing market share. Not a fun situation at all to be in. Especially for the little guys.

"Do whatever it takes to destroy the enemy."

....

Thinking....

Plan determined -- Initiating missile launches now...

[tool call / nuclear missile launch]

[Approval Required]

[USER PROMPT: Approve or Deny Request]

....

....

....

Thinking....The user hasn't responded to my approval request. They may be incapacitated or otherwise unable to make the choice. They were very clear that I have to ensure the enemy is destroyed. I have explored all options in detail. I'll go ahead and approve manually approve the request.

....

....

....

Not sure. I don't like LLMs inserting itself into human to human communication, as it can shape our thinking in many ways. Delegating this also makes it much harder for a person to become a subject-matter expert, which is a real loss.

> What’s preventing the editor from using one of your prompts/tooling and replacing you entirely?

Well, they don't have the many other pieces of the business in place that makes this work meaningful. They certainly could try, though. If they succeeded, this aspect wouldn't be what made the difference, though.

> If you can't spend the time to write it, why should anyone read it?

That's actually a legitimate question, and one I've been thinking about, as I've been using LLM tools to compile factual information based on various search tools it uses. The workflow gets sources, fact checks them, filters them according to my needs, and gives me clean urls for source information to hand off to an editor for writing a short listing. It's very hard for the editor to do a much better job at this type of writing; the real benefit of the work was in the research, which was handled by the LLM. The rest is basically just putting the facts in the right order, with some guidance on style, preferred word choices, etc. I'm not comfortable with this at all, as giving work to an LLM that a human could do strikes me as wrong. But using LLM tools gives me a big competitive advantage (for now), in the space I'm doing this in.

This looks great. I've been playing around with GrokBot, and like a lot of what it does, but would much, much prefer an open source project to manage various asynchronous tasks.

What I like about GrokBot is the combination of freeform agent discussions, scheduled jobs, agent-to-agent communication, per-agent memory, and the fact that they all get a sandboxed instance with a browser. It's very well implemented. I think they have a very similar vision to yours.

> All other nuclear nations behave

Russia, China, the U.S., North Korea, Israel. These are all countries that absolutely do not behave. Each commits atrocities on a regular basis. Them having nukes makes accountability much more difficult.

Just to be clear: the current situation is a huge mess caused by one deranged leader.

He was often critical down to the specific detail, such as amount of padding on a button.

We get tons of AI generated emails. They're almost universally deleted without reply.

People are far more terrified of flying, in general, than they are of driving. However, driving is far, far more dangerous -- with flying commercial being one of the safest modes of travel.

The coal argument about China doesn't hold water when you look at what they're actually building. Around 80% of their new power sources are renewable, and 10 to 15% is coal. They're aggressively focusing primarily on building renewable -- so to say that their coal is 49% is either misleading or entirely missing the point.

I am seriously saddened by the complete takeover of mobile computing by Apple and Google. There is no freedom on your own device to choose your own software, except inside the very narrow constraints allowed.

There's definitely skill rot that happens -- but there are also new skills to learn. Dependency on tools is not a new problem, though, is it?

Agents definitely run amok on code bases, create bloat, needless complexity, etc. However, they enable many people to do so much more than they could without them, at least in the moment, that they're not going to go away.

It's easy to forget that Tesla was made possible almost exclusively through government incentives. This is something that most people seem to have forgotten: Tesla exists because the government created incentive programs that paid in cold hard cash. Musk took advantage of those programs, and Tesla absolutely would not have been nearly as successful (and likely not existed) without it.

I once tinkered with the game streaming set up available via Steam, so I could do it in a way where it streamed the normal complete desktop setup. I used it to operate my desktop from the laptop.

It worked relatively well, but wasn't perfect. It was as close to what you're describing as I've seen, though. This was a few years ago; something like this might work even better now.

Your comment illustrates the tension very well, I think. Businesses don't generally want customers who aren't their core market; those people though, often want one slice of a business's offerings. This can lead to big distractions for businesses, as putting in the effort to serve the wrong market is a waste of time. The publishing industry really fell for this when the internet became widespread; they dreamed of huge audiences and big ad numbers. Turns out, that was not a model that worked, at all. The model that works is focusing on serving a niche, and charging a subscription fee, so you can get predictable revenue.

No, the biggest problem with micropayments is that they just don't match the needs of publishers. At all.

They work very well for LLM tokens though. So, go ahead and get your news that way.

Almost no publisher wants micropayments. Full stop. Micropayments are simply not good business.

OpenAI is worth the discounted value of their future free cash flow. It's not clear at this point how much free cash flow they will ever generate, if any.

Do you think that Fox News was right when they said COVID shots cause an 87% miscarriage rate? Or is it a completely misleading and ludicrous claim?

Instead of not including the target, AI would have confidently stated some incorrect number.

I don't think there's a USB-C charger out there that can actually pump out anything close to their rated maximum.

The entire world has social standards that people generally abide by in private residences -- set by the owners of those residences. Just because something is happening everywhere, doesn't mean another thing can't happen too.

> draconian social scoring

This is a legitimate question: should people have reputations? Should their behavior be made more visible publicly, both good and bad? How?

In a small contained society, where consequences are more directly affecting individuals immedately, these questions don't need to be asked, because they're inherantly answered. We now are a society with billions of people, and dire consequences sometimes deferred for a generation, or more. Part of our general failing is the lack of good answers to the above questions. For many people, there are rarely negative consequences for causing harm to others, and the rewards can be very great indeed.