Basically, this. My first tech job was IT support at the time and ordinary people using their computers for actual work liked them too. I remember the dog/puppy being particular popular. At worst the assistants were seen as charmingly naff, not actively hostile. They were simple for power users to disable and this weird retroactive hatred for them feels more like some kind of nerd bitterness over the fact that normies ever started using computers in the first place. There was plenty of reason to be critical of Microsoft in those days that wasn't their office assistant.
So, like, we were already pretty much priced out of higher-end graphic cards, and now it's happening to RAM. All this while jobs are disappearing, layoffs are ongoing and CEOs are touting AI's 'capabilities' left and right.
Next is probably CPUs, even if AIs don't use them that much, manufactures will shift production to something more profitable, then gouge prices so that only enterprises will pay for them.
What's next? Electricity?
Where the f*k is all the abundance that AI was supposed to bring into the world? /rant
Maybe that is the answer to how things are supposed to work if AI replaces everyone and no one can afford to buy their stuff.
Things being too cheap allows money to pool at the bottom in little people's hands in the forms of things like "their homes" and "their computers" and "their cars".
You don't really want billions in computing hardware (say) being stashed down there in inefficient, illiquid physical form, you want it in a datacentre where it can be leveraged, traded, used as security, etc. If it has to be physically held down there, ideally it should be expensive, leased and have a short lifespan. The higher echelons seem apparently to think they can drive economic activity by cycling money at a higher level amongst themselves rather than looping in actual people.
This exact price jump seems largely like a shock rather then a slow squeeze, but I think seeing some kind of reversal of the unique 20th century "life gets better/cheaper/easier every generation".
I very much disagree that consumers holding more hardware capabilities than they need is a bad thing. Replace computing hardware with mechanical tools, because they are basically tools, and consider if consumers be better off if wrenches and saw blades and machine tools were held more exclusively by business and large corporations. Would corporations use them more often? Probably. And yet it seems pretty clear that it would hurt the capabilities of regular people to not be able to fix things themselves or innovate outside of a corporate owned lab.
To me the #1 most important factor in a maintaining a prosperous and modern society is common access to tools by the masses, and computing hardware is just the latest set of tools.
The important thing is that the people who actually do matter here are being very serious.
And I assume some of them read these threads, so my advice to them would be to remember that the bunker air vents will probably be the main weak point.
Yeah, I'm always confused why programmers seem to like this technology given the vast negative consequences it will likely have for us. The upsides on the other hand seem to be the most insignificant things.
> upsides on the other hand seem to be the most insignificant things
An abundance of intelligence on Earth with all its spoils: new medicine, energy, materials, technologies and new understandings and breakthroughs - these seem quite significant to me.
There is absolutely no guarantee that those things will happen just because Claude takes your job. Taking your job doesn't require super-intelligence, it doesn't even require human-level intelligence. It requires just enough intelligence to pump out mediocre code that sort of works and being way cheaper to run than your pay.
Super-intelligence is a completely different can of worms. But I'm not optimistic about super-intelligence either. It seems super naive to me to assume that the spoils of super-intelligence will be shared with the people who no longer can bring anything to the table. You aren't worth anything to the super-rich unless you can do something for them which the super-intelligence can't do.
There is absolutely no guarantee that Claude takes your job either. But if you believe so much in AI, investing in it is accessible to pretty much any pocket, you don't have to be rich to partake.
And when did "the rich" hoard anything for themselves only?! Usually I see them democratizing products and services so they are more accessible to everyone, not less.
Computers in my pocket and on my wrist, TVs as big as a wall and thin like a book, electric cars, flights to anywhere I dream of traveling, investing with a few clicks on my phone - all made possible to me by those evil and greedy rich in their race for riches. Thank you rich people!
You still need to be rich to partake. Most business ventures will still require capital even in the age of super-intelligence. Super-intelligence will make labor worthless (or very cheap) it won't make property worthless.
> And when did "the rich" hoard anything for themselves only?! Usually I see them democratizing products and services so they are more accessible to everyone, not less.
There are plenty of examples of rich people hoarding their wealth. Countries with natural resources often have poor citizens because those citizens are not needed to extract that wealth. There is little reason why super-intelligence will not lead to a resource curse where the resource is human intelligence or even human labor.
> Computers in my pocket and on my wrist, TVs as big as a wall and thin like a book, electric cars, flights to anywhere I dream of traveling, investing with a few clicks on a website - all made possible to me by those evil and greedy rich in their race for riches. Thank you rich people!
Those rich people didn't share with you out of the goodness of their heart but because it was their best strategy to become even richer. But that's no longer the case when you can be replaced by super-intelligence.
Again, you can invest, today, in AI stocks and ETFs, with just $100 and a Robinhood account. No need to be rich.
> Super-intelligence will make labor worthless (or very cheap) it won't make property worthless.
If the labor is worthless, the great majority of people will be poor. Due to the law of supply & demand, property will be worthless since there will be very little demand for it.
> Countries with natural resources often have poor citizens because those citizens are not needed to extract that wealth.
Countries with or without resources often have poor citizens simply because being poor is the natural state of mankind. The only system that, historically, allowed the greatest number of people to exit poverty is capitalism. Here in Eastern Europe we got to witness an astonishing change of fortunes when we switched from communism to capitalism. The country and its resources didn't change, just the system and, correspondingly, the wealth of the population.
> it was their best strategy to become even richer. But that's no longer the case when you can be replaced by super-intelligence.
How can they become richer when most people are dirt broke (because they were replaced by AIs) and thus can't buy their products and services? Look at how even Elon's fortunes shrink when his company misses a sales forecast. He is only as rich as the number of customers he can find for his cars.
> Again, you can invest, today, in AI stocks and ETFs, with just $100 and a Robinhood account. No need to be rich.
And then? I'll compensate the loss of thousands of dollars I don't earn anymore every month with the profits of a $100 investment in some ETF?
> If the labor is worthless, the great majority of people will be poor. Due to the law of supply & demand, property will be worthless since there will be very little demand for it.
Property has inherent value. A house I can live in. A farm can feed me. A golf course I can play golf on. These things have value even if nobody can buy them off me (because they don't have anything I want). Supply and demand determine only the _price_ not the _value_ of goods and services.
> Countries with or without resources often have poor citizens simply because being poor is the natural state of mankind. The only system that, historically, allowed the greatest number of people to exit poverty is capitalism. Here in Eastern Europe we got to witness an astonishing change of fortunes when we switched from communism to capitalism. The country and its resources didn't change, just the system and, correspondingly, the wealth of the population.
None of this has any connection to anything I've written. I'm talking about the concept of a resource curse. Countries rich in natural resources (oil, diamonds, ...) where the population is poor as dirt because the ruling class has no incentive to share any of the profits. The same can happen with AI if we don't do anything about it.
> How can they become richer when most people are dirt broke (because they were replaced by AIs) and thus can't buy their products and services?
Other rich people can buy their products and services. They don't need you to buy their products and services because you don't bring anything to the table because all you have is labor and labor isn't worth anything (or at least not enough to survive off it). Put differently: Why do you think rich people would like to buy your labor if using AI/robots is cheaper? What reason would they have to do that?
> Look at how even Elon's fortunes shrink when his company misses a sales forecast. He is only as rich as the number of customers he can find for his cars.
You're proving my point: Elon still lives in a world where labor is worth something. Because Elon lives in a world where labor is worth something it is in his interest that there are many people capable of providing that labor to him. This means it is in his interest that the general population has access to food and water, is well eduacated, ...
If Elon were to live in a world where labor is done by AI/robots there would be little reason for him to care. Yes, he couldn't sell his cars to the average person anymore, but he wouldn't want to anyway. He could still sell his cars to Altman in exchange for an LLM that strokes his ego or whatever rich people want.
The point is: Because rich and powerful people still have to pay for labor, their incentives are at least somewhat aligned with the incentives of the average person.
> And then? I'll compensate the loss of thousands of dollars I don't earn anymore every month with the profits of a $100 investment in some ETF?
Probably most of it at least, because under your supposition that the AGI will replace labor we'll get incredibly cheap products and services as a result.
> Property has inherent value.
You weren't talking about inherent value when you wrote "Super-intelligence will make labor worthless (or very cheap) it won't make property worthless." which is what I replied to.
> None of this has any connection to anything I've written. I'm talking about the concept of a resource curse.
And my point was that the wealth of a nation does not come from its resources but its entrepreneurs. Resources are a course usually when monopolized and administrated (looted) by corrupt governments, not when exploited by private entities. AIs controlled by governments would scare me indeed.
> Other rich people can buy their products and services.
> He could still sell his cars to Altman
Are you joking?! How many cars do you think Altman can buy?! Do you really think the rich people can be an actual market?! How many rich people do you think there are out there?! Are you talking about middle class by any chance?
> Why do you think rich people would like to buy your labor if using AI/robots is cheaper?
Because labor evolves too, just like it evolved when automation, IT and outsourcing came around. Yes, I can't sell my dirt digging services in the age of digging machines but I can learn to drive one and sell my services as a driver. Maybe I can't sell coding in the age of AI but I can sell my ability to understand, verify and control complex systems with code written by AIs.
And so on, you get the idea. Adaptation, creativity and innovation is the name of the game.
> You're proving my point
> The point is: Because rich and powerful people still have to pay for labor their incentives are at least somewhat aligned with the incentives of the average person
Not at all. My point was that Elon and rich people are interested in you as a customer, not for your labor. That is the old mindset and the one we need to evolve from. See yourself as selling and buying products and services, not your labor, and the world will be full of opportunities. "The rich" won't seem like a separate class from you, but regular people you can interact and profit from (while mutually benefiting).
> Probably most of it at least, because under your supposition that the AGI will replace labor we'll get incredibly cheap products and services as a result.
No, we will get cheap _labor_, not necessarily cheap _products_.
> You weren't talking about inherent value when you wrote "Super-intelligence will make labor worthless (or very cheap) it won't make property worthless." which is what I replied to.
I was talking about value, not price.
> AIs controlled by governments would scare me indeed.
What is the difference?
> Are you joking?! How many cars do you think Altman can buy?!
Why would Elon need to sell more cars? And for what exactly? You have nothing Elon wants.
> Maybe I can't sell coding in the age of AI but I can sell my ability to understand, verify and control complex systems with code written by AIs.
Unless the super-intelligence is better than you here too. Why wouldn't it be?
> Adaptation, creativity and innovation is the name of the game.
It is the name of the game until super-intelligence comes along which will be better at all of this than you. That's exactly the scary thing about super-intelligence.
> My point was that Elon and rich people are interested in you as a customer, not for your labor.
This is the same thing. I can only be a customer if I can bring something to the table that Elon wants from me. That thing is money. I can only bring money to the table if someone that has money needs something I can provide. That thing is human labor. If super-intelligence removes the economic value of human labor, I can no longer earn money and consequently Elon will not be interested in me as a customer.
> See yourself as selling and buying products and services, not your labor, and the world will be full of opportunities.
Where exactly is the difference between me "selling a service" and me selling "labor"?
> "The rich" won't seem like a separate class from you, but regular people you can interact and profit from (while mutually benefiting).
I doesn't matter whether or not you see the rich as a seperate class. What matters is simply the following:
People who own a lot of stuff, don't sell their labor and/or buy a lot of labor will profit if labor becomes cheap. People who don't own a lot of stuff, sell their labor and don't buy a lot of labor face an existential threat if labor becomes cheap.
I feel like you're fighting the fallacy of "the rich" being collectively blamed for every problem, by giving them credit for everything instead.
We know that none of the goods you listed would be available to the masses unless there was profit to be gained from them. That's the point.
I have a hard time believing a large group being motivated and mutually benefiting towards progression of x thing would result in worse outcomes than a few doing so. We just have never had an economic system that could offer that, so you assume the greedy motivations of a few is the only path towards progress.
> We just have never had an economic system that could offer that
Please propose it yourself.
> you assume the greedy motivations of a few is the only path towards progress
No. I assume the greedy motivations of the many is the best path towards progress. Any other attempts to replace this failed miserably. Ignoring human nature in ideologies never works.
That's extremely difficult. I just don't assume something is impossible because it hasn't been done yet. Especially when there is an active battle to undermine and destroy such ideas by almost every powerful entity on earth.
Literally none of what you just said is true. All of those things happened because there was a market opportunity, there was a market opportunity because wealth was not just in the hands of the rich.
If you want to look at what historically has happened when the rich have had a sudden rapid increase in intelligence and labor, we have examples.
After the end of the Punic wars, the influx of slave labor and diminution of economic power of normal Roman citizens lead to: accelerating concentration of wealth, civil war and an empire where the value of human life was so low that people were murdered in public for entertainment.
> All of those things happened because there was a market opportunity, there was a market opportunity because wealth was not just in the hands of the rich.
Yet those things did not happen in communist countries (or happened way less in socialist ones), during the same time period, even though the market was there too. That is why EU's socialist countries consume high tech products and services from the USA and not the other way around.
Ding ding ding. What a surprise that a system designed not for human flourishing but pure profit would actually deliver massive profit with no regard for human flourishing.
Humanity will have to adopt new human-focused modes of living and organizing society, or else. And climate change is coming along to make sure the owning class can't ignore this fact any longer.
> a system designed not for human flourishing but pure profit
But please, don't be coy: tell us about that other system that is designed for "human flourishing" - we're dying to learn about it.
Because I grew up under communism and I lived its miserable failures: the non-profit system didn't even manage to feed, cloth or warm/cool us.
> new human-focused modes of living and organizing society
Oh, these sounds sooo promising. Please do tell us: would you by any chance be willing to use force to "convince" the laggards of the benefits of switching? What if some refuse to believe your gospel? Will you turn to draconic laws and regulations?
It's depressing how in the modern day you can't criticize capitalism without immediately being told that you must be a supporter of soviet-style authoritarian socialism
There are shades of grey here. Capitalism is a system with many inherent problems. Exploring alternatives is not the same thing as being a Stalinist
This exactly. Capitalist propaganda likes to paint anything other than capitalism as Stalinist authoritarian communism, which should be abhorred as well as capitalism, and just for the same reason: both are coercive, hierarchical, and unfree.
Because every time I encounter such capitalism haters they turn out to be marxists in disguise. Usually pushed and promoted by people that never lived outside of their comfortable capitalist wealth bubble, written on capitalist devices, here, on this very venture capitalist's forum! The hypocrisy boggles the mind, really.
It's like the lack the most basic understanding of economics and they never read any history. I mean, communism has failed everywhere it was tried and there were so many A/B test that plainly show each system's results: North vs South Korea, Eastern Europe before vs after 1990, USA vs USSR, Argentina during the last hundred years, Venezuela before and after Chavez, etc.
Or they push socialism under new names ("democratic") as if it's a new thing, not just a watered down form of communism, with authoritarian communism being the logical end game of socialism - because "at some point you run out of other people's money" and you need force to keep fleecing them. Just like it happened in Venezuela...
Lucky for you, I'm not a Marxist. There is a very large current of people who are socialists but not Marxists, and have spent literally over a century analyzing history, economics, and capitalism itself, without insisting on the coercive hierarchy of Marxism or capitalism. And it has a long history of working in practice, even if in the modern day it tends to be crushed by both Marxist and capitalist forces, because who knew an authoritarian structure could allow you to command huge armies and oppress others?
You seem well aware of authoritarian communism, but generally unaware of libertarian socialism. They are distinct, and the latter has a decades long history of despising the former as much as you do, though for being based on the same primary issue as capitalism: coercive hierarchy.
It all starts with assuming the freedom of human beings, and that the only way to organize a system has nothing to do with efficiency or profit, and everything to do with maintaining that human freedom. It must be based on human freedom, and the concept that no one knows how to run your life better than you do. That no one deserves to be able to force you to do things. Whole systems arise from that fact, that have a long basis in history. As I've said elsewhere, you don't end up with men on the moon or dollar stores, but you do get people who are in control of their own lives.
I've seen mainstream "socialists" (Obama, Sanders, countless Europeans) embracing and sustaining authoritarian communist thugs like Chavez, so...
We've seen here in EU socialist policies cripple our economy to the point we're lagging the USA and we can't even defend ourselves from the blood-hungry psychopath in the east.
> libertarian socialism
Is this a real thing? Any examples of being implemented anywhere? Cause it sounds like a oxymoron to me. Socialism means regulations and confiscation from the productive members of society (taxation). Those must be enforced with the threat of force so less liberty there...
> no one deserves to be able to force you to do things
So I shouldn't be forced to pay my taxes? How would then a socialist government implement its expensive social policies?!
I'm not going to spoon-feed you anymore because you're clearly not interested in a conversation, and are quite happy with the status quo. I hope for your sake you don't end up on the wrong side of capitalism.
They didn't say communism was the only other option; this seems like a bad faith reply.
Capitalism increasingly fails to provide well-being to the majority of the global population. It's obvious we need to come up with something else, even if it's not clear yet what shape that will take.
If we can't find an alternative that works, we can also just wind down humanity, and not much of value to the universe will be lost :)
But there's solutions proposed all the time; tax the rich, tax the corporations, and use that money for socialist policies, like the ones being dismantled by the US right now. Regulate the biggest expenses like health care, housing and energy, restrict how much datacenters can use as their consumption drives up the prices, etc.
You don't need to go full communist to make things better.
I appreciate the lack of sarcasm in your reply. And echo the other reply's point about not being able to criticism the system that is literally destroying the planet and in by design totally unsustainable...
> But please, don't be coy: tell us about that other system that is designed for "human flourishing" - we're dying to learn about it.
Libertarian socialism, anarchocommunism, any system where human freedom is the basis, and not coercion or hierarchy. This stuff is not new or radical, it's just not favored by people with lots of money to lose.
> Oh, these sounds sooo promising. Please do tell us: would you by any chance be willing to use force to "convince" the laggards of the benefits of switching? What if some refuse to believe your gospel? Will you turn to draconic laws and regulations?
Lucky for you, no. The complete opposite. Freedom of association is the entire foundation of it. We all get to associate with whomever we want, when and for as long as we want. Someone being a condescending prick in your local comment section? You get to ignore them! No commissars or cops or Party. Someone wants to go play hierarchical capitalism with his friends? As long as he's not messing with other people or contravening their rights, they get to do whatever they want.
Will any of these systems result in 99 cent stores, fast food restaurants, or people on the moon? Almost definitely not. But those are all irrelevant to creating a sustainable environment designed for human beings, and not profit.
The lack of innovation (or even reading of basic history...) in what is possible in terms of organizing human societies is frankly sad, especially among tech workers. Most people are too influenced by capitalism (intentionally so) to believe that how things are now is the only way they can be. There is so little scope for innovation and change, and that starts with the owning class who have no interest in it changing.
> The complete opposite. Freedom of association is the entire foundation of it.
There is a saying: you can be communist under capitalism but you can't be capitalist under communism. And it's true: there are plenty of communes, coops and non-profits being run in the US right now.
Can you describe how that would work the other way around under "libertarian socialism"?
> sustainable environment designed for human beings, and not profit
Profit is also for humans, not space aliens. Without profit, how do you convince people do the necessary jobs nobody wants to do, like sanitation or war?
> people on the moon? Almost definitely not.
Then the country and the system resulting in people on the moon will come and take over your own "designed for human beings" because they will innovate and advance technologically while you will be playing hippy in the park.
With a hundred bucks and a Robinhood account, you too can be part of this greedy, evil and mysterious "owners of AI" class and (maybe) some day enjoy the promised spoils.
Oh the wonders of Capitalism, the economic system offering unequal abundance to everyone caring to take part... Where are the other, much touted systems, masters at spreading misery equally?
How much is due to long overdue infrastructure upgrades and greed by providers, vs the cost of energy?
Also, consumer prices _have_ risen (mine included), but it's not clear that this is only because AI. While EV charging is not at the scale of all data centers combined, it seems to grow even faster than the datacenter's consumption, and is expected to eclipse the latter around 2030. Maybe sooner due to missing solar incentives.
Also, to rant on:
According to [1], an average Gemini query costs about 0.01 cents (Figure 2 - say 6000 queries per kWh at 60 cents/kWh, which is probably more than the industrial consumers pay). The same paper says one other providers is not off by that much. I dare say that at least for me, I definitely save a lot of time and effort with these queries than I'd traditionally have to (go to library, manually find sources on the web, etc), so arguably, responsibly used, AI is really quite environmentally friendly.
Finally: Large data centers and their load is actually a bit fungible, so they can be used to stabilize the grid, as described in [2].
I would think it would be best if there were more transparency on where the costs come from and how they can be externalized fairly. To give one instance, Tesla could easily [3] change their software to monitor global grid status and adjust charging rates. Did it happen ? Not that I know. That could have a huge effect on grid stability. With PowerShare, I understand that vehicles can also send energy back to power the house - hence, also offload the grid.
> How much is due to long overdue infrastructure upgrades and greed by providers, vs the cost of energy?
This only makes sense if you ignore profits. We've been paying the bills since before this was "overdue"; for instance i am still paying a storm recovery surcharge on my electric bill from before i ever moved to this state. At the point where a "temporary infrastructure surcharge for repairs" becomes a line item on their profit statement, that's where i start to get real annoyed.
Our electric company has 287,000 customers and has a market cap of >$800,000,000
what percentage of that eight tenths of a billion in market cap came from nickel and diming me?
* note: nickel and dime was established as "an insignificant amount of money" in the 1890s, where sirloin, 20% fat was $0.20 a pound. That's $13.50 now (local); chuck $0.10 and $19 now. So somewhere between 67 and 180 times less buying power from a nickel and dime, now. Also that means that, y'know, my surcharges being $15-$30 a month is historically "nickels and dimes"
In my personal case, it was cost of energy due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine triggering a stop on buying cheap gas from them. Infrastructure upgrades are also being done, costing tens of millions per year because the grid can't handle the sudden increase in renewable energy generation and electrification (to ironically move away from dependency on gas).
I mean part of me thinks it's a necessary evil because we relied too much on Russian gas in the first place. But that's because we extracted most of our own gas already (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field), which that article lists as one of the factors in the Dutch welfare state being a thing - it and smaller fields out at sea contributed over 400 billion to the Dutch economy since the 1950's.
It's only meaningful if you have enough disposable income to invest that it eventually (and I don't mean in 50 years) makes a dent against your living expenses.
If you make $4k/mo and rent is $3k, it's pretty silly to state that it's a meaningful thing for someone to scrimp and invest $100/mo into a brokerage account.
They definitely should do this, but it's not going to have any meaningful impact on their life for decades at best. Save for a decade to get $12k in your brokerage account, say it doubles to $24k. If you then decide you can get a generous 5% withdrawal rate you are talking $600/yr against rent that is now probably $3500/mo or more. Plus you're killing your compounding.
It's good to have so emergencies don't sink you - but it's really an annoying talking point I hear a lot lately. Eye rolling when you are telling someone struggling this sort of thing.
It really only makes a major impact if you can dump large amounts of cash into an account early in life - or if you run into a windfall.
where are you getting $1k/month? GP said "invest" $100 per month given a $48,000 income and rent of ~$36k/yr.
Yeah obviously if i can sock away $12,000 a year for 10 years i'll have money. Just be aware that i was in a bunch of funds from 2010-2020 and were it not for what happened at the end of that decade i wouldn't have made any additional money at all. In fact, i would have lost a decent chunk of money - not just in fees, but inflation.
Also, where are you guaranteed 6% for a decade? t-bills or something?
The pauper who invests peanuts and receives peanuts isn't the problem. The professional who invests modest sums and boosts their retirement isn't the problem.
The centabillionaire who invests their fortune and receives $50M a day from the market and cares about nothing more than keeping the gravy train going is the problem. They head to Washington and splash their free money hose around in exchange for political support to keep that hose pumping at all costs. That's why politicians were so lock-step about how it was super important for the US to sell our industry to China and drop capital gains tax below income tax and open the Double Irish Sandwich and now they're getting rid of social programs and instituting 50 year mortgages and so on.
The fact that the guy with the firehose can pump the firehose by stepping on the guy investing $1k month is the core of the problem. Until you are at escape velocity -- your net worth is enough to cover your lifestyle from investment returns alone -- you lose by default.
Rent should not be more than 1/3 of your income so moving to an appropriate place will let that person save an extra 2k a month. It would take a year instead of a decade to have invested 24k.
like under a bridge or something? Pardon the hyperbole, but you would have to assume people with no disposable income are idiots in order to suggest that solution.
Or at their parent's house or going to find roommates. If you can't afford to move out by yourself than you shouldn't do it if you want to be financially responsible.
The lower COL areas are lower because they're less economically viable, and therefore less desirable. The job opportunities and income will, more or less, match the lower COL.
Theres some exceptions, like rural doctors can make more more than city doctors due to high demand. But the less "physical" your job is, the rarer these exceptions become.
For software devs, you can move out of silicon valley. Maybe to Texas. And now those 1.5 million dollar homes are only 700,000 dollars. But your salary will reflect that.
That and water. Electricity: Google made a post about scaling k8s to 135.000 nodes yesterday, mentioning how each node has multiple GPUs taking up 2700 watts max.
Water, well this is a personal beef, but Microsoft built a datacenter which used potable / drinking water for backup cooling, using up millions of liters during a warm summer. They treat the water and dump it in the river again. This was in 2021, I can imagine it's only gotten worse again: https://www.aquatechtrade.com/news/industrial-water/microsof...
Is any datacenter's water use significant compared to other industrial installations? According to that article, all datacenters in North Holland use 550 Ml/yr. North Holland has 2.95M residents [0], who use 129 l/person-day [1], 47 Kl/person-year, 139,000 Ml/year for the whole region. So the data centers use an estimated 0.4% of the region's water. Data centers use about 3% of the Netherlands' electricity.
Why do you think this is a lot of water? What are the alternatives to pulling from the local water utility and are those alternatives preferable?
> abundance. For those that own stuff and no longer have to pay for other people to work for them.
Why are you saying that? Anybody working for a living (but saving money) can invest in AI stocks or ETFs and partake in that potential abundance. Robinhood accounts are free for all.
These two are already difficult or impossible for many people. Especially a big chunk of USAmericans have been living paycheck to paycheck for a long time now, often taking multiple jobs just to make ends meet.
And then to gamble it on a speculative market, whose value does not correlate with its performance (see e.g. Tesla, compare its sales / market share with its market value compared to other car manufacturers). That's bad advice. And for an individual, you'd only benefit a fraction from what the big shareholders etc earn. Investing is a secondary market.
> a big chunk of USAmericans have been living paycheck to paycheck
That doesn't mean they are poor, just poor with their money. Saving is a skill that needs to be learned.
> That's bad advice.
No. Not investing, when the S&P500 index had a 6% inflation-adjusted annual historical return over the last 100 years - is bad advice. Not hedging the arrival of an AGI that you think can replace you - is bad advice.
It’s not an utopian idea to try as a society to hedge and distribute returns to all members. From a human resource perspective, it is insane (ie. costly and inefficient) to put it on the shoulders of each individual. But that’s where we are (almost; happy to live in a country with still some public services like unified healthcare and retirement funds).
Yes, you can drill your own well to have water in a society, for some. Or, you come up with the unheard-of idea of public utilities, so people can simply open a tap and enjoy. In some regions, even drink it. Personally, growing up in a lucky place like that, I have a hard time imagining to ever live in a place that required me to buy bottled water.
Yes, you can demand each member of society to learn about ETFs. Personally, I enjoy every part of life where complexity is being dealt with for me; I wouldn’t survive a day without that collaboration.
We have a choice to design society, like we have a choice to design computer systems.
> It’s not an utopian idea to try as a society to hedge and distribute returns to all members.
It's not utopian, is downright dystopian. Redistribution means forceful confiscation (through taxation) from the most productive members of society. This in practice means punishing work, innovation and creation and rewarding laziness and low productivity. This will logically lead to a less productive societies that will fall behind and be either bought out or conquered by more successful, more aggressive societies. We've seen this scenario unfolding in the EU.
> I enjoy every part of life where complexity is being dealt with for me
Me too. But I want private companies dealing with that complexity, because market competition controls them and keeps them honest, unlike governments which are monopolies happy to give people free benefits and entitlements to buy themselves their next elections.
I also want participation in such schemes to be voluntary not compulsory since this keeps people responsible, aware and educated. Compulsory schemes are widely hated and rejected, even when being a net positive otherwise.
> public utilities
My water utility is a state-granted monopoly charging outrageous prices. Same for my electricity provider. I would love to quit them, but any competition was outlawed, of course.
> you can demand each member of society to learn about ETFs. Personally
If you have time, go to an online calculator and compute how much the compounded amount taken for pension from your salary every month would be worth today if invested in an S&P500 index ETF - then compare to your projected state pension. It was eye opening to me.
It seems we live in two almost separate only thinly connected realities (*). In such cases I’ve learned that while I wouldn’t mind deepening the exchange, for that to feel worthwhile for me it would have to happen in person and not online.
(*) my definition of reality includes not only observable “facts“ that we may agree on, but also our experience of it; our perception, judgments, values etc.
...which almost everybody agrees is a bubble, wondering not if, but when it will burst.
Investing in AI companies is just about the last piece of advice I'd give someone who's struggling financially.
The billionaires will largely be fine. They hedge their bets and have plenty of spare assets on the side. Little guy investors? Not so much. They'll go from worrying about their retirement plan to worrying about becoming homeless.
Yes electricity by more short-sighted, dirty methods (remember when crypto clowns bought an old fossil plant just for coin mining?) but more alarming, fresh water.
Drive prices have already exploded. New hard drives have doubled in price since the beginning of the year. I haven't checked SSD prices, but why would they not be crazy, too?
The AI bubble has also pushed up secondhand prices. I work in ewaste recycling. Two weeks ago, a petabyte's worth of hard drives showed up. After erasing, testing, listing, and selling them, I'll have a very merry Christmas.
After the supply constraints of the post-covid period, are graphics cards really that more expensive?
How long do you estimate this period of supply constraint will be? Will manufacturers continue to be greedy, or will they grow less greedy as the supply improves based on the price signals the high price indicates?
> Where the f*k is all the abundance that AI was supposed to bring into the world? /rant
It may have been a bit self-deprecating, but I think your “rant” is a more than justified question that really should be expanded well beyond just this matter. It’s related to a clear fraud that has been perpetrated upon the people of the western world in particular for many decades and generations now in many different ways. We have been told for decades and generations that “we have to plunder your money and debase of and give it to the rich that caused the {insert disaster caused by the ruling class} misery and we have to do it without any kind of consequences for the perpetrators and no, you don’t get any kind of ownership or investment and we have to do it now or the world will end”
In world history, the vast majority of abundance is downstream of conquest, not innovation. Plunder makes profit. Even in weird moments like today, where innovation is (or, at least, was) genuinely the driving force of abundance, that innovation would not have come about without the seed capital of Europe plundering Africa and the Americas.
Abundance isn't even the right framing. What most people actually want and need is a certain amount of resources - after which their needs are satiated and they move onto other endeavors. It's the elites that want abundance - i.e. infinite growth forever. The history of early agriculture is marked by hunter-gatherers outgrowing their natural limits, transitioning to farming, and then people figuring out that it's really fucking easy to just steal what others grow. Abundance came from making farmers overproduce to feed an unproductive elite. Subsistence farming gave way to farming practices that overtaxed the soil or risked crop failure.
The history of technology had, up until recently, bucked this trend. Computers got better and cheaper every 18 months because we had the time and money to exploit electricity and lithography to produce smaller computers that used less energy. This is abundance from innovation. The problem is, most people don't want abundance; the most gluttonous need for computational power can be satisfied with a $5000 gaming rig. So the tech industry has been dealing with declining demand, first with personal computers and then with smartphones.
AI fixes this problem, by being an endless demand for more and more compute with the economic returns to show for it. When AI people were talking about abundance, they were primarily telling their shareholders: We will build a machine that will make us kings of the new economy, and your equity shares will grant you seats in the new nobility. In this new economy, labor doesn't matter. We can automate away the entire working and middle classes, up to and including letting the new nobles hunt them down from helicopters for sport.
Ok, that's hyperbole. But assuming the AI bubble doesn't pop, I will agree that affordable CPUs are next on the chopping block. If that happens, modular / open computing is dead. The least restrictive computing environment normal people can afford will be a Macbook, solely because Apple has so much market power from iPhones that they can afford to keep the Mac around for vanity. We will get the dystopia RMS warned about, not from despotic control over computing, but from the fact that nobody will be able to afford to own their own computer anymore. Because abundance is very, very expensive.
Actually, this seems to be mostly a spike in retail prices, not wholesale DRAM contracts that are only up 60% or so in the past few months according to Samsung. So we should most likely place at least some fraction of the blame on our fellow consumers for overreacting to the news and hoarding RAM at overinflated prices. DRAM sticks are the new toilet paper.
> Actually, this seems to be mostly a spike in retail prices, not wholesale DRAM contracts that are only up 60% or so in the past few months according to Samsung. So we should most likely place at least some fraction of the blame on our fellow consumers for overreacting to the news and hoarding RAM at overinflated prices. DRAM sticks are the new toilet paper.
What is your source on that? Moore's Law is Dead directly contradicts your claims by saying that OpenAI has purchased unfinished wafers to squeeze the market.
Note the consistent "up to 60% since September" figure in the above recent reports. That's for one module capacity, with others being up 30% to 50% - and it certainly isn't the 200% or more we're apparently seeing now in the retail market. That's pure panic hoarding, which is actually a very common overreaction to a sudden price spike.
Same, bought in August for $250 (EU), now it's ~$840. I ended up returning the laptop I'd bought it for and thought 'why hold on to the RAM, it'll only depreciate in value,' so I returned that too. Better hold on to my PS5, I guess.
Google is just one of the companies killing the open web. None of them will say it outright, but they'll just scrounge up enough "security" reasons for their decisions to seem palatable, even to the HN crowd.
They're just turning up the heat, even more so since AI became a thing.
Google is evil. Every single one on here arguing "but muh security improves" is against freedom of computing, plain and simple. There's no middle ground.
Google & others have slowly turned down the freedom dial over the years and we let it happen. People working for Google let it happen. I'm not aware of any inside movement protesting this like they protested against various social issues.
Security that you can't turn off is basically a prison.
People can usually tell if an answer isn't helpful, but not always that it isn't accurate. Depending on the context, 85% accurate might not be good enough.
Yep, the other commenter is right--85% is helpful AND accurate. I'd love for you to give it a try and see if 85% is not good enough though. There's always more to push on quality and the more real feedback we get the better we can prioritize what people need.
>95% of answers could be accurate. Combined with the 85% that are helpful and you have “85% of answers are helpful & accurate.”
Instead of using the lower bound, wouldn't it make more sense to say "85% of the 95% accurate answers are helpful"? Or perhaps "95% of the 85% helpful answers are accurate"?
In both cases, the number for "answers that are both helpful and accurate" is lower than 85%.
reply