That is ascribing far too much strategic thinking to this administration. They're just not capable of the kind of planning and foresight that would require.
The administration's planning is much more along the lines of, Will this look cool when they announce it on Fox News tomorrow? If you think there's much beyond that, you're ascribing strategic clarity where there isn't any. They're continue to flail around and TACO until they have a result they can present to MAGA loyalists as a success, regardless of actual merits.
It's not a question of ethics. It's a question of competence.
I mostly agree with you, but I do think they’re highly skilled at taking advantage of whatever messes they cause. “Chaos is a ladder” might as well be the theme of this decade.
It's not the administration doing the strategic thinking. The administration is entirely reactive and straightforward to manipulate -- if you have money.
The people with strategic goals just send money and compliments and the administration does what they want.
I would not underestimate the figures in the background. Trump and Hegseth are clowns of course, but they don't make policies.
The energy dominance model was already floated by Trump in his first term. He was the most vocal critic of Nordstream long before the Ukraine war. Biden couldn't push so aggressively because of the green agenda but dutifully shut down Nordstream and made the EU dependent on US LNG.
Now with the oil barons in power, there are no green agenda limitations and the long term plan (which is 100% not from Trump himself) can accelerate.
Look how they already make the EU and Japan rearm with all these levers (they should rearm, but for the purposes of keeping waterways free from whomever blocks them ...).
For me it was torrenting a 7G ball of weights leaked from Meta and running alpaca.cpp (an early variant of llama.cpp) on my desktop computer in early 2023. I started asking it questions about the Roman empire and it answered me in English! The responses were generally incorrect, but no worse than what your average American college student might guess at, though delivered with much more confidence.
This was my desktop computer responding to questions in English, not some fancy server in a massive Google data center. Who cares if what it says isn't reliable? Being able to converse with my CPU in English is like having a conversation with a dog!
The AI-driven data center roll out raises some legitimate concerns that really ought to be considered and discussed at the political level. I doubt that a blanket ban on data centers is the right approach.
These are the data center issues as I understand them, in ascending order of importance:
* Water use: Almost always a red herring or non-issue, unless the DC is being built in an area with water shortages. DC's use a lot of water, but their use is negligible compared to many other industries.
* Neighborhood appearance: They're not particularly pretty to have in your back yard, but much less ugly than, say, a factory. They're not inherently polluting.
* Power draw: This is a legitimate concern as DC's use an enormous amount of electricity. In the short run, it could make sense for deep-pocketed investors to subsidize residential or non-DC power consumption to keep everyone's electric bills from skyrocketing. Longer term, power companies will need to build much more generating infrastructure. I'd love to see a carbon tax to encourage the construction of renewable (or nuclear) power. Sadly, the current US administration seems intent on vice-maxing and ruining as much as they can for future generations.
* AI-driven job displacement: I think this is the real worry people have. The water use thing is an excuse people are looking for to oppose AI.
IMHO, that last one is the crux of the issue, and banning DCs from being built in New York will do absolutely nothing to alleviate this concern. The tech billionaire class has been harping about how they'll make money for investors by automating everyone's job, and the people have noticed.
My optimistic take is that AI companies won't in fact capture all of the value from automation, because they'll be competing against each other, and against open weights models. But who knows? Maybe a single company will achieve Super-AGI first and they'll own the world. I doubt that will happen, but this is what they're aiming for, and a lot of the money invested only makes sense in light of that goal.
And even in my optimistic scenario, the job disruption will be quite real. New jobs will be created as other jobs are lost to automation. That's well and good after things have settled, but it is very disruptive to people's careers and ambitions in the mean time.
I'm very open to the idea that consciousness is substrate independent. I have a hard time seeing why molecules could produce consciousness from an electro-chemical path, but not from a purely electrical path. Having said that, it should be very clear that LLMs are not conscious.
LLMs process language. I'd even go so far as to say that LLMs "think" and "understand", or at least, they produce a facsimile of thinking and understanding such that it's useful for us to reason about LLMs as if they think and understand. We're not used to interacting with a non-human entity with the capability to process language, so it's easy to ascribe human traits to these things. But their "minds" (insofar as they have anything like a mind) are completely different from ours. These things have language without consciousness.
Chimpanzees are conscious. Dogs are conscious. Maybe ravens and cephalopods? Who knows. These animals do have minds much like ours. Higher order animals are conscious even if they don't have language.
> I have a hard time seeing why molecules could produce consciousness from an electro-chemical path, but not from a purely electrical path.
Do you have any particular reasoning behind this? I could equally say that I have a hard time seeing why molecules could produce consciousness from a purely electrical path.
Humans don't handle all corner cases. People can be slow to react to completely novel or surprising situations. There will be corner cases where humans generally do better than a machine, but the simple rule to slow down and come to a halt if things look too weird or confusing will almost always be the right answer.
Ideally, driverless cars will one day be better drivers than humans and this will save tens of thousands of traffic deaths per year. Holding up progress because cars will be confused in extremely rare or improbable situations will cost more lives than it saves.
Not only are people slow to react to unusual situations, but this is taken advantage of by city designers to force people to slow down.
Random planters in the middle of the road? Streets that narrow and then widen? Drivers start slowly creeping along, which means they are less likely to injury pedestrians.
I think self-driving cars will only become better once they can do all the learning in real time and on-board. Otherwise, they will only be as good as the data they trained on - which is ultimately real meat driver data and a derivations of said data.
Ideally, robot drivers will some day be better drivers than humans in all road conditions. They'll be able to coordinate fast lane merges and busy intersections by subtly adjusting speed without vehicles having to stop.
Imagine a busy intersection where all the cars fly past one another at 40 miles an hour without stopping but none of them crash. Humans can't do this, but machines could, if, and when the technology gets there. To be clear, there's still a way to go.
Once all cars are autonomous, that day is certainly coming. Even before then, it's very likely we'll see platooning in the future, even if there are still some human drivers.
Also, this already exists in some places. Look at a video of how to cross the street as a pedestrian in Vietnam: You literally just start walking across and people weave around you. Or look at driving in India and similar places.
While it's theoretically possible that this technology could work effectively, given the people involved, this project is probably a complete bamboozle that will divert funds away from enforcing the deportation of immigrants.
Nah, much like the app it’s all about plausible deniability. It’ll be crap… but they’ll just make it give positive matches to as many people as possible so they can be dragged off.
You're overthinking it. They're going to give Meta a lot of money for the existing glasses to do the same thing but slap a stamp called 'secure' on them.
It isn't, all that money they're asking for is a grift, you don't need tens of billions of dollars for ethnic cleansing, poorer countries and their dictators manage with much less. It makes ethnic cleansing a more profitable endeavor for these scum, and that money will go a long way for protecting them against the sheepish democrats that will use lawyers judges to go after them.
An "emergency" no-bid contract awarded to a company with connections to Trump that has increased from $2 million to $15 million. And doesn't fix any underlying issues with the pool leaks.
Small potatoes compared to estimated $7 billion in insider trades made on oil and betting markets, front running announcements on the illegal Iran war. [0]
Author Philip Pullman published a version of the Grimm fairy tales in 2012. These stories are intended for a modern audience, but in my opinion, Pullman does a good job of preserving a fair amount of the original scariness and general weirdness. Definitely rougher than the Disney versions of these stories. I recommend this volume to anyone with small children.
The administration's planning is much more along the lines of, Will this look cool when they announce it on Fox News tomorrow? If you think there's much beyond that, you're ascribing strategic clarity where there isn't any. They're continue to flail around and TACO until they have a result they can present to MAGA loyalists as a success, regardless of actual merits.
It's not a question of ethics. It's a question of competence.
reply