• 12 Posts
  • 1.76K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 10th, 2023

help-circle







  • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.catoAI@lemmy.mlAI Needs Your Help!
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    Fuck I hate it when anything uses “water consumed” as a bad thing.

    Writing a 100-word email consumes about 500ml of water (17 oz).

    500ml of water is used in a cooling system. This water is not lost in any way, it’s just warmed up and evaporated. Which then falls as rain again.

    If you draw more water from a particular area than that area can support it’s a bad thing. Otherwise, this is just a stupid argument made to appeal to emotions rather than logic.

    Where I live, our main water source is a lake, and we only even bother closing the weir(a type of dam) that holds the water in come the middle of March, and open it completely again in October. We just just let billions of liters flow directly out to the ocean the rest of the year.

    Especially for AI, you don’t need to locate datacenters near population centers at all, the latency doesn’t affect that use case at all. So it should be easy enough to build them in locations that have easy access to cheap energy and large amounts of water, pretty much anywhere that has a hydro electric dam is a good choice.





  • I honestly haven’t considered that one, definitely more likely to be followed, but I suspect Panama would likely sabotage it before letting it fall into US hands at this point.

    Any sort of physical aggression would probably be unpopular with US citizens again because there’s no provocation from Panama, US ships use it all the time so there’s really no reason to take it by force. Once there are losses of military men and women in fighting over it it would likely quickly turn it into a deeply unpopular situation.

    There are militarily strategic reasons to take Panama though, which is why the generals may still agree. If trump were to declare some sort of semi-war on China for example and the goal was to reduce Chinese global shipping capacity.







  • The first argument is a non-starter, professions have come and gone for all of human history. Where did all the people who raised and trained horses go when cars came out? Where did all the people go who made buggies and coaches? What about people who lost their jobs to construction equipment like excavators? What about switchboard operators at telephone companies?

    The economy will re-organize itself to adapt to the newly available labour. Don’t get me wrong, individuals are going to be absolutely devastated by this, but not replacing someone who’s doing a job that can be automated is no different than having them dig a ditch and fill it back in. It’s never a good idea to hold back technology just to keep jobs around. This path leads to the Amish.

    Liability for accidents has already been sorted out for 100% autonomous cars, it’s the vehicle manufacturer’s fault. For most of the current ones on the road, they are modified existing vehicles, so the manufacturer would be said to be the self-driving company (like Waymo) though once the software is built in from the factory it will be on Ford or Nissan or whatever likely in partnership with a software vendor. They may insure themselves, but likely only against catastrophic situations rather than day-to-day accidents.

    They are definitely considering cyberattacks.



  • The benefit to self-driving cars is self-evident though. There’s no argument that they wouldn’t be better than human drivers in theory. Not only for safety, but for traffic, parking, cost, etc.

    The only thing holding them back a this point is refinement. They have already proven that in at least three cities, they are mile for mile safer than human driven vehicles.

    Waymo has gone from 1 city, to 3, to now pushing out to 11 in a few years. I wouldn’t be surprised if it doubled 5 times again in the next 10 years. That would put it in just under 200 cities by 2035.

    The first iPhone only sold a million units in the first year, but two years later there were 25 million iPhones and they hit the 200 million mark by year 5.