Where did you get that from?
According to Stefan-Boltzmann , power is proportional to the 4th power of temperature, so temp matters very much. Even at 50C, you get 550W/m^2 radiation per side. That leaves a big margin for temp gradient from panel to GPU core. So I assume you numbers must be single sided, and based on a lower temperature?

Even so, that is less than the area of solar panels needed to generate the power. Total mass works out slightly more. The economics of space-based AI servers compared to earthly is dubious, especially as battery storage continues to drop in price.
    But why are some people focussing on claiming some fundamental physics limit in cooling? Aside from the usual /. motive of wanting to sound smart, as far as I can tell they seem to be motivated by an emotional reaction to a person whose politics does not align with theirs. Tribalism can make people blind.

About 5 billion years.

Good point that the yanks might miss because they never have bushfires in California.

Dangerous words for an Australian. Do you want to be woken at 5am by a thousand squawking cockatoos in the big gumtree on your verge?

And your lack of imagination or insight doesn't mean it isn't happening. Ultimately the answer depends of properly defining the question.
      Some people think the answer to "do we have free will" is difficult. But actually it is the question that is hard. Fix the question and define your terms, then the answer is relatively easy.
      The most common mistake is framing a question for free will, consciousness, sentience or agency as binary (yes/no). That is a stupid question. Instead ask "how much" and rigidly define your terms. That is hard, but then the answers are easy. And boring.

Human nature. If not those, its toxic masculinity, systemic racism, AI datacentres, imminent facism, climate doom, or evil corporations. We love a bogey-man, the "folk devil".

        The one thing everybody seems to be worried about, regardless of politics, is perhaps social media algorithms? And China. Two things.

Go on, you have the basis of an idea there. See if you can make an argument from it.
Is it purely hypothetical, do you believe it matches observations? Is that what you this Qwen is??
Please make a point.

People who have a coherent argument to make, and are not afraid to defend it, put their arguments plainly and directly.
Others use sarcasm in order to avoid committing to any real statement, and avoid any debate or criticism. It is a lazy, cowardly approach for the inarticulate. It doesn't make you wrong, just vague and not contributing to a debate.

Yes China lies. Tell us how that is different from your side, and what this actually means for AI negotiations.

Sure, they are 2 different questions:
1) what is the local effect at the dump site? Does it matter?
2) what is the long term effect when the remaining waste disperses?

There is not a lot in between. Anything that dissolves into seawater will rapidly disperse.

"Word-guessing?" How does this naive notion persist?

Its really sad how many moronic human responses are generated by every AI story. Its like sport and politics there.
Why do people feel a need to be so opinionated on a topic they clearly know nothing about? OK, not literally nothing, but just enough for Dunning Kruger.

AIs are indeed used to train AIs, but mostly they train themselves. i.e. most of the compute power in training a new model is self-supervised.
Human feedback is a small but important part of post-training, and you don't hire expensive humans for a task that can be done by AI.

So yes, if a human is doing training (probably just A/B choice) , there must be a good reason why they are not already using AI for that particular task.

The natural amount of activity in the Pacific ocean is about 8 billion TBq, mostly potassium-40,
so we are talking less than a drop in a bucket here. Assuming they were dropped deep, and not off somebody's coast?

Will this replace Planck units?

Err, habit. Its that guy.
But ok, first he conflates one of his pet hates, "big AI" , with Palantir.
The substance is not horribly wrong, but the way he says it might be accurately described as "flamebait". Certainly inflammatory. And there is no "he's right, but does not have to be such a douche about it" moderation. The juvenile name-calling is as bad as Trump.

Thats an old myth, based on life expectancy ay birth. Those who survived childhood would expect to live another 40 years. Living to their 70s was common.

Actually, growing food is a recent innovation. Mostly it was hunting and gathering. And when resources were low, war with the next group over the hill was better than starving.

  Hunter-gatherers had far more leisure time than peasant farmers, more even than a typical worker today. But the land supports far fewer people that way.