> One could also argue this is a temporary condition - driving the world to better, more efficient power-supplies in the long term (like nuclear).
This is a massive and dangerous assumption. Given that humanity could not have picked a worse time to double-down on ever increasing its emissions, we're going to need to do a lot better than "this massive increase in energy usage _could_ be temporary, despite all evidence to the contrary."
> It also allows engineers to more quickly arrive at efficient solutions for their problems - enabling more efficient systems being deployed earlier - possibly saving energy in the long run.
I'd have to be a _damn_ slow programmer for your average prompt session to be more energy efficient than my laptop running Vim.
I find the rest of your argument to be equally unconvincing, but you could have just stopped here, because no other points are remotely as important as AI's impact on climate change.
A situation where there’s one seller (USA) in a world of buyers (Europe, Japan) is by definition an abberation.
It may have been good (for the US), but that definitely doesn’t make it normal, and unfortunately I don’t see how such a situation occurs again without similar circumstances. I’d love to be wrong, though.
That's why the tall bank buildings that dot ~every small town (and plenty of big ones) in the US are full of bankers tending to paper ledgers, and with a secretary in front of every office. We still get milk delivered every day, as well as a block of river ice from last winter every 2 or 3 days (or more often if it's been particularly hot). We dig our ditches by hand, with hand-made shovels and pickaxes. The material for the clothes on our backs was woven on manual looms, from cotton that was harvested by hand, and carded by hand, and spun into thread by hand. We wear them in homes made with iron nails that were cut by hand, from ores that were mined by hand and smelted the only way we know how: With charcoal, in clay furnaces that were made with hands and that are stoked by hand.
Technology progresses. You're playing to an end-state of AI that assumes labor disappears entirely because you have yet to see what the new labor system looks like.
Are you conveniently forgetting about all the tech shifts from the past that did replace labor permanently? The printing press, steam machine, electricity, electronic computers,... even something banal like an elevator used to need a skilled laborer to operate it and now no longer does.
> TV shows and podcasts are both competing for the same audience.
If by "audience" you mean "people," sure, but I don't think that's particularly meaninful. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that podcasts and TV shows aren't even kind of comparable or able to replace one another.
Not really, the time I set aside for shows, podcast, movies and games is all different. I am not going to give up watching slow horses to watch a podcast,
Sure, but for people without abundant time to spend alone then watching a show this evening kind of precludes also ingesting a podcast before tomorrow. It's not like the labour movements around the world have negotiated significantly more free time for the big mass of working humans since Netflix said that sleep is their biggest competitor back in 2017.
Yeah but podcast is low quality time; shows,movies are high quality, games are high quality high focus, music and podcast are lower on the rung. Its something you can have playing in the background and not pay attention.
Like the time I have for high quality stuff and low stuff are different and therefore different audiences. For Low quality stuff podcasts are fighting against tiktok
The point is that these are not separate. They cannot be separate.
Deep understanding, taste, aesthetic, sensitivity to nuance, and so on...none of that can be developed without intimate involvement with the process, with the thing itself.
Your example of poisonous paint vs buying it in tubes is a fallacy, because that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about _actually painting_ vs just...telling someone else to paint.
reply