Carbon footprint shows how much energy is being used per capita. Population density is way past the point where it’s practical for people to live off the land in some subsistence living scenario. What is more likely to happen is that we’ll see things like indoor farming being developed so that cities can feed themselves. This will become particularly important as climate continues to deteriorate, as indoor farms will make it possible to have stable environment to grow food in.
Having grown up in USSR, I know there was in fact a huge difference. The economy wasn’t structured around consumption, goods were built to last. People weren’t spending their time constantly shopping and consuming things. The idea that USSR was destined to collapse is also pure nonsense. There were plenty of different ways it could’ve developed. USSR certainly didn’t collapse because it was running out of energy.
Old enough to remember how people made these same arguments about writing in anything but assembly, using garbage collection, and so on. Technology moves on, and every time there’s a new way to do things people who invested time into doing things the old way end up being upset. You’re just doing moral panic here.
It’s also very clear that you haven’t used these tools yourself, and you’re just making up a straw man workflow that is divorced from reality.
Meanwhile, your bonus point has nothing to do with technology itself. You’re complaining about how capitalism works.
The point is that capitalist relations are absolutely the problem here. Social systems do not have to be built around consumption. You’re also talking about natural systems that evolve based on selection pressures as opposed to systems we design consciously.
First of all, carbon footprint in China is already far lower than in any developed country. Second, as I already pointed out, most countries simply outsourced their production to China.
China’s already doing this with nuclear, so there’s a good chance they might do this with data centers too. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/chinas-first-commercial-nuclear-district-heating-scheme-expands
That’s just saying that China is one of the most populous countries in the world that also happens to be a global manufacturing hub. China still uses fossil fuels, but I think it’s fair to call it an electrostate at this point.
Finally, it’s also worth noting that China has a concrete plan for becoming carbon neutral, which it’s already ahead of
The fact of the matter is that air is an incredibly inefficient thermal conductor so data centers have to burn a massive amount of extra electricity just to run powerful fans and chillers to force that heat away. That extra energy consumption means an air cooled facility is responsible for generating significantly more total heat for the planet than a liquid cooled one.
When you put servers in the ocean you utilize the natural thermal conductivity of water which is about 24 times higher than air and allows you to strip out the active cooling infrastructure entirely. You end up with a system that puts far less total energy into the environment because you aren’t wasting power fighting thermodynamics. Even though the ocean holds that heat longer the volume of water is so vast that the local temperature impact dissipates to nothing within a few meters of the vessel.
that’s literally the case https://www.mintpressnews.com/jessica-ashooh-reddit-national-security-state-plant/277639/
Yes, it is a fallacy because the problem is with the economy system as opposed to a specific technology. The liberal tendency often defaults to a form of procedural opposition such as voting against, boycotting, or attempting to regulate a problem out of existence without seizing the means to effect meaningful change. It’s an idealist mindset that mistakes symbolic resistance for tangible action. Capitalism is a a system based around consumption, and it will continue to use up resources at an accelerating rate regardless of what specific technology is driving the consumption.
We had a discussion about AI at work. Our consensus was that it doesn’t matter how you want to do your work. What matters is the result, not the process. Are you writing clean code and on finishing tasks on time? That’s the metric. How you get there is up to you.
The fallacy here is the assumption that if LLMs didn’t exist then we wouldn’t find other ways to use that power.
seems like the opposite is happening in practice with models drastically increasing in efficiency
What happens with Venezuela is going to be an important test of how that develops I suspect.
I’m disappointed Siegel doesn’t attribute Asimov’s brilliant 1989 essay, The Relativity of Wrong.
BRICS countries are the most likely destinations. There’s little chance that anybody outside the west would park money in Europe at this point.
Clearly rape, torture, and pillaging have fuck all to do with investing in Europe given that the US is one of the biggest trading partners of Europe. Try to put a bit more effort into your artless trolling.
Again, you’re discussing tools you haven’t actually used and you clearly have no clue how they work. If you had, then you would realize that agents can work against tests, which act as a contract they fill. I use these tools on daily basis and I have no idea what these surprises you’re talking about are. As a practitioner, I find these things plenty practical.