For now, I know it will be plagued with problems. High costs, lots of bugs, etc.

But it's just matter of time it will work well.

Then what?

Then it depends in the next bottleneck. What limits our consumption?
There are different possible bottlenecks. One is wealth distribution. It doesn't matter if there are lots of people if robots owners accumulates most of the wealth so consumption of the most is limited or reduced, so the total consumption doesn't increase. That's turn into a dystopia.

Another is resources. We are in a transitional model from limited resources using in a inefficient way towards a new close circle renewable usage of resources. In the meantime, resources can limit the total production capability. In fact, massive automation can make this worse, so it's need to advance here as quickly as possible.

An third is just human desires. A different way of living and culture can just limit our own consumption.

If the three occurs. Wealth redistribution, sustainable resource usage and a rejection of consumerism culture, then the consumption per person in Earth can peak. And if population peaks, also peaks the total production. And as AI and robots advances, our society will need to change as the old job centered model won't work anymore. We won't produce to consume. Robots can do that. We will only work for enjoyment and self-fulfillment, because it's healthful for us (in a moderate level).

There are multiple dystopian futures, but also utopian futures as well, where our moral values changes and humankind can refocus to new goals and ways of living.

I don't expect a soft transition, but still I'm optimistic with the final outcome after some social tensions. More like the previous century. (Let's hope it doesn't include World Wars)

AI is coming and they can't stop it, only slow it.

The copyright system has benefits but also problems.

The idea of copyright is to help creators, inventors, etc. so bring up the idea, which is one of the most difficult steps is correctly rewarded instead of allowing anyone to just copy the good idea and doing a better implementation sometimes not through a refinement but just better manufacture capabilities, creating a barrier between creators and producers.

BUT, that model runs over premises that are crumbling each day it passes.

First, original ideas used to be owned by small inventors or creators. Nowadays most of them are owned by big companies, just because the real creators are employees or because they buy the patent.
Patents & copyrights are more and more using as ways to block innovation instead of spreading it.
Sometimes when the rewards reach the creators (let's say, for example, a group of researchers of a drug inside a big pharma), most of the revenue is dragged by the pharma instead of the researchers.

And now, with AI, while we aren't still in the moment where AI are good as creating new styles or ideas (although there are some success), they clearly allows to DROP the replication costshttps://f6ffb3fa-34ce-43c1-939d-77e64deb3c0c.atarimworker.io/story/25/03/27/0023207/openais-viral-studio-ghibli-moment-highlights-ai-copyright-concerns?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed# to a ridiculous degree.

If the old model worked well, rights should drop the cost by creation, while the total revenue could remain flat or even increase thankful to the increase of total works created. BUT that's not how they try to move here.

The people with AI wants free access. Creators wants restrictions.

We clearly a need a new model. One that reward each person, BUT NOT IN EXCESS, and don't try to stop the unstoppable. That only will move the generators from one place to another.
Once the AI tech works enough well, the impact on creation will be enormous, reducing producing costs by a lot.
Now we have images and rudimentary tools. But in the future we will have plenty of tools to make fix a style, build characters, develop scenes through a combination of sketches and tools to tell the AI how the animation should work, not just words..

In the end, a very small of workers will be able to do plenty of work.

That's a huge advantage. We shouldn't stop that revolution. We just need a model that reward each worker rightfully. Style creators too.

The old model require a huge update or just a replacement by a new model.

Maybe it has reached a peak, maybe not.

It's clear that if the population peaks, and without good AI, the total brain will peak one way or another.

It's not the population peak, not yet. But adding people is just one of the factors, so other things can accelerate the peak a little.

BUT, that doesn't mean that's a stop for humankind. So that peak would be forever.
To grow exponentially we clearly needs grow, but we need to create more "space" to grow without collapse our environment.

That's exactly what a space program can do... in a long... very long term. So, for some decades, maybe centuries, our civilization can reach a brain peak. Well. AI progress seems optimistic so we could expand through that for some time. In long term, adding more population will be a must, and that require to build more sustainable places. And probably Earth is not the best place if we want to ensure that our homeworld biosphere doesn't collapse.

Automation and AI can helps us to break that limit in the meantime until a lot of space infrastructure is built. Build computer centers on space would be easier than manned colonies, but in the end, it's almost the same. It require we industrialized space anyway. And that would take time, so that temporary peak is very probable, no matter if it's in the recent past or in the near future.

But we can break that limit. It's not forever if we don't loose the will.

I can understand their claims.

After making some calculations, it seems that most AI datacenters while they eat A LOT of energy, in fact, infrastructure costs (chips) are A LOT HIGHER THAN ENERGY COSTS.

So, they can afford to pay huge energy costs, if that results in advantages like 24x7 generation and in place generation.

Nuclear could suit their needs well.

BUT, that's not excuse to low the guard. As business they will push the most advantage position for them, and nuclear is filled with lots of hidden costs.

If all costs are accounted correctly... I don't see the problem. They want a expensive energy because it has some advantages for them. So... sure. Just pay for everything. Waste management, decommission, some network costs, risk mitigation and security measures, etc...

I think they would reach better results with an energy mix but... whatever. If they want to put their money there, it's their problem.

But only, if IT'S THEIR MONEY.

And still, you can say that it's like something between 6 and 8 nuclear reactors.

For a year installation, It's a very good number.

Like in the best time of nuclear plant installation, around 197x.

These projects needs too much human work, but MAYBE that could be softened through AI in next future, both in terms of reverse engineering and programming an alternative.

But I think the biggest issue here is right issues.

The only reason Microsoft is not actively prosecuting these efforts is because the low level of adoption of these projects. They are too lacking to be useful in most scenarios so they are not a problem for MS.

But in case they advanced to a point they become a real alternative to Windows, I expect a bad reaction from Microsoft, and the law is on his side.

They have lots of patents and it's expected lots of code coincidences, even if there isn't stolen code or too deep reverse engineering ends generating a decompiled code that's near a plagiary.

In the end, until Microsoft disappears, you only can expect work on very old code or minor markets that are no real impactful on the original Windows market.
Otherwise, Microsoft will sue the project as soon as it damages his market.

With a few exceptions, AI is just being used to boost or replace human labor.

Human labor is not the bottleneck of the current economic model. A lot of countries have an excess of human labor. Of course, they are always open to CHEAPER human labor. That's good for the business owner no doubt.

And that could be shown as an slightly progress. After all, human labor is like any other cost. If you reduce it, you can allocate more resources in other place.

BUT... that's the thing. PEOPLE is different, from macroeconomics perspective. People is gonna eat, drink, live in a house, etc. He's gonna consume, though salary or through social welfare.

So saving salaries doesn't change that the economy needs to invest on people one way or another.

If human labor were the economy bottleneck, then after reduce the labor through optimizations, the economy would expand and would get richer.
But, what if there is bottlenecks as energy and raw materials?

Then you only have a wealth redistribution. The owner of the business that got an advantage implementing AI will get richer. The people that work in the replaced/optimized job is poorer. Maybe through government intervention, like taxes, another wealth redistribution occurs and everything ending remain more or less the same.

But that's temporary. As AI gets smarter and smarter, they will start to add real wealth in form of advancements that could allows us to break the real economy bottlenecks. Or at least, we can hope that could happen.

If nor, AI won't benefit most of us. It will just destroy the labor market, with no guaranties that a wealth redistribution will at least compensate that.
But if AI can unlock the solutions for the problems, everything can change.

It's just, AI is still not smart enough. We don't need a million of computer monkeys that replace humans we have in excess. We need a thousand of new Einsteins that give us the right answers for our problems.

It's not.

It's just USA government doesn't care about anything it's not their own interests.

In this case, Europe.

That's my hypothesis. Europe was key in the geopolitical war after WWII because it represented an important source of manufacture, world power and a counterweight against URSS. It's also the gate to Middle East and some African resources.

Now the world has changed. In the future, oil and fossil fuels will loose their power slowly. Middle East will loose their main source of income, so it will radicalize more and more. Europe has being loosing their manufacture capability and power position in the world.
This will come a reality in the next two decades.

Russia also has a limited capability of worldwide control. Their wealth is also mainly based on fossil fuels, so even if they seems very powerful now, it will change very, very fast in upcoming decades.
While now China can be considered as an ally of Russia, it's also about convenience. China will drop Russia as soon as Russia won't be convenient for their interests.

That's the position you can deduce once you accept that the future is renewable and nuclear energy.

So, soon Middle East will cost more than the benefits gets from the control. Also the same on Europe.

So Trump is pushing OTAN for its destruction intentionally. He's forcing a "I want resources and money or I'm out". Whatever Europe choose, they loose. In any case, they will be out in the long run.

That's also the reason he's pushing for new resources, oriented to the new economy. Rare earth minerals as key goal, for example. He told the "drill baby" for their voters, but his real geopolitical movements are pointing into a different future.
Remember whos whispering in Trump's ear. Elon Musk.

These people knows who's the real challenger in next decades over the world hegemony. China.

If you are american, you probably only hear the propaganda. The excuses. But in the end, leaders move over interests and long term plans.

So in the end, their movements is not based on freedom. Trump position on Ukrania is just a business.
Yes... it's cruel and treacherous. Maybe even evil. But it's understandable from an selfish position.

And yes... it's generating a heavy blow in Europe-USA relationship. But... it seems that it's exactly intentional. As he has chosen that the relationship won't beneficial anymore. We are in transition times, were that point is not as clear, so they will force positions. But one day they will just break OTAN (or push Europe to break by themselves with absurd demands).

Welcome to the real world. This is not Hollywood. It's not about freedom or world leadership. It's about (selfish) interests.

Is it that mean that this attack is based on USA? Not necessary. Others (like Russia) can also benefit from it. But if it were a dirty attack from american secret operations, I wouldn't surprised.

I don't expect western media to told us clearly anyway.

Sounds like an announcement did to create the illusion of competition against the announcement of Microsoft's Majorama quantum chip.

If Microsoft hasn't hyped/lied about his chip, it's a breakthrough in how the quantum processors can be built.

I guess Amazon needs to announce something to say that they aren't behind.

Let's say it's a game. It's using bugs, valid or invalid?

Ask the speedruners.

If the training system doesn't detect or penalize the "invalid" behavior, that resource would be considered as valid as any other strategy.

It probably even consider the risk. Lie is only bad if you are discovered in terms of pure punishment.
Lie and not being discovered means good profit.
Lie and being discovered is a big lose.

So, classic high risk high gain scenario. So it's expected to cheat where is more convenient.

Deceive doesn't even require a conscience neither pure intelligence. It's inside multiple forms in nature. Lot's of species full of mimics too hide or mislead other species, both prey or predators.

AI is a tool.
The crime is fake impersonation with bad intentions. Using technology or using other method doesn't change the crime.

And that crime already exist. And because it's a crime already, why a ban will stop anything?

You don't need an explicit AI legislation, done to force by law that AI would be controlled by a small number of powerful people.

Doing that you are creating a lot worse future for all of us. AI would be probably become too powerful and being under the control of a minority is one of the worse things you can do. Technology needs to be shared.

Of course, you need some regulations. For example, when you create some content, to have the obligation of tagging the process or face consequences.
We need to separate legit uses from illegal abuse so bad cases can be prosecuted. Like in any other cases.

But not bans or AI centralization. If a universal AI can't be developed, then I prefer no AI at all.

That AI allows us to build things we can't do it before?

The argument about "firm" energy is usually repeated but it's misleading.

Energy grid is about match demand and generation.

Yes. Uncontrolled renewable doesn't match, and the only way without storage or mix is just adding a ridiculous high renewable power.

But the people repeat about "firm" is just fixed in the old past. There is dispatchable and non-dispatchable energy producers.
The very old ways where hydro, which is dispatchable, next coal, that it's partially dispatchable (slow adaptation, so you need to overproduce if you depend on coal to manage the network), later gas (dispatchable) and nuclear (original and lots of reacotrs are non-dispatchable).

Nuclear, at least common nuclear, is flat on production, or it has an slow and fixed capability to modulate part of the power it has.

The thing is... you need a certain level of dispatchable, while non-dispatchable generated a whole that needs to be filled by the dispatchable.

If you talk about "firm" and "non-firm", gets the idea that firms helps to stabilize the grid, but it's not. It's about how the mix adapts to the consumption curve vs the production curve.

And, for example, nuclear and wind mix very bad, as nuclear produces flat, while wind changes but as average, tends to be flat on winter and night high on summer.
They don't mix. The "firm" concept doesn't help in understand the problem.

Solar, in contrast, produce during the day, as it mix very will with the demand curve, and mix very well with both, nuclear or wind, with a gap at sunset, easily covered with future cheap battery storage.

The concept of "firm" won't help to understand this difference. Why nuclear&solar = complements. wind&solar = complements. wind&nuclear = compete

You can mix wind and nuclear, of course, but only by sharing the same generation niche of the curve.

No about building the excavation. It can be done for sure.

$1.08 billion?

Sounds like lots of projected costs of nuclear industry. Way below the real numbers.

Definitely, not all languages think or express the same way.

Did you have found that you know some term in one language and, when you don't have that word in the language you want to express, you just import the word?

I'm Spanish. And sometimes you have words like "Crush" (in a romantic sense). When I speak in Spanish I just teasing someone I use that word.

Well. I did also because I think that person also knows the word, but the thing is... it's a better word that other Spanish expressions like "que... te encoñaste de ella?". It's the same... but sounds rude as the word "coño" is considered a bad word that alone is used in the same way as "pussy".

We also have "enamorarse", but it means literally "get in love" and that's... not exactly the same when someone is just in the stage of being fascinated and attracted to someone without really understand and know for real that other person.

When I needed, I just switch language. No problem.

I think here is the same. If the shorter path to think about something is using a better suited language, because the related ideas are better expressed there, the IA switch.

Have you tested write to an IA in mixed languages? It understand it without problems, and the response can be very chaotic. Sometimes I just express myself in Spanish and the IA answer in English. Fortunately that's not a problem for me.
But... yeah... switch to asian languages would be a problem for me. X-D