I don't think the environment being cool is a factor in current data center designs is it? Otherwise, the northern US or Alaska would be candidates. Instead, a lot of the data center boom is in states like Texas or the south.
I think some interviewer with Trump did actually ask him the question you posed and he said something to the effect of "ownership is important" for him _personally_ not necessarily for the _US_ which is the a ridiculous thing to hear from a leader of a country.
> I don't think the environment being cool is a factor in current data center designs is it? Otherwise, the northern US or Alaska would be candidates. Instead, a lot of the data center boom is in states like Texas or the south.
It is increasingly becoming so. And some designs work well. I only read a post about the internet archive's smart use of the server heat a couple days ago, I can't find it back now. And indeed, good point. Alaska would be great for that too.
And the US is kinda an exception, the rest of the world is watching emissions but the US is trying to screw the world up for everyone else. Including themselves but Trump followers seem to view all the disasters as an 'act of god'. I remember those poor school kids in the flooding in texas last year and there being more 'thoughts and prayers' than actual help or prevention.
I know Ireland is popular for datacenters in part because of the climate there (in another big part all the tax breaks but ok).
And yes you can cool them with renewable energy. Most datacenters are. But it also means that renewable energy can't be used for something else.
>I think some interviewer with Trump did actually ask him the question you posed and he said something to the effect of "ownership is important" for him _personally_ not necessarily for the _US_
Does he actually know the difference between "mine" and "the US'" though? I was under the assumption that since the US is his, anything important for him is also important for the US, and vice versa.
Wasn't the original ARPANET entirely owned and controlled by the US government? I think it might've been resilient against attacks from people who didn't own the network but I would also be surprised to learn the US government couldn't shut it down if it wanted.
It's the frictionless aspect of it. It requires basically no user effort to do some serious harassment. I would say there's some spectrum of effort that impacts who is liable along with a cost/benefit analysis of some safe guards. If users were required to give paragraph long jailbreaks to achieve this and xAI had implemented ML filters, then I think there could be a more reasonable case that xAI wasn't being completely negligent here. Instead, it looks like almost no effort was put into restricting Grok from doing something ridiculous. The cost here is restricting AI image generation which isn't necessarily that much of a burden on society.
It is difficult to put similar safeguards into Photoshop and the difficulty of doing the same in Photoshop is much higher.
i think you have a point but consider this hypothetical situation.
you are in 1500's before the printing press was invented. surely the printing press can also reduce the friction to distribute unethical stuff like CP.
what is the appropriate thing to do here to ensure justice? penalise the authors? penalise the distributors? penalise the factory? penalise the technology itself?
Photocopiers are mandated by law to refuse copying currency. Would you say that's a restriction of your free speech or too burdensome on the technology itself?
I wonder what the terms of this new deal are. Goldman Sachs had accepted absolutely ridiculous terms like forgoing fees because they were apparently desperate for consumer business. Chase has an existing consumer business so I can't imagine they would accept the same terms but I wonder what this would mean for the card benefits.
While there isn't a way to differentiate between scraping for training data and content accessed in response to a user request, I think you can block Googlebot-extended to block training access.
Iirc, the problem with Bayesian neural networks is that they're significantly more difficult to train. Using stuff like SVI reduces a lot of the representational ability of the distribution over weights. It's also questionable how useful the uncertainty over weights is.
I suppose in the tradition of Bayesian influence, VAEs and the like are still common though.
It's weird to me that when people talk about Tesla, the business, is doing poorly, the retort is citing the stock price as if that's somehow what the person is talking about and not going to be seen as disconnected from fundamentals by the person you're talking to. So many things were being used to justify the stock price have simply not materialized. For example, the idea that Dojo would be a lasting moat does not appear to be materially true.
As a business, they've seen declining yearly revenues (2025 is expected to be lower overall) and declining sales on a YoY basis in a sector that has seen tremendous growth. The article we're on literally is how Tesla squandered their lead over BYD.
Autopilot and FSD are neat (for some definition of neat) but have clear competitors with Waymo being far ahead in deployment. BYD has their own developing system that's not as good but it's not clear to be that FSD will be some kind of enduring advantage either given that parallel systems are also being developed.
> It's weird to me that when people talk about Tesla, the business, is doing poorly, the retort is citing the stock price as if that's somehow what the person is talking about and not going to be seen as disconnected from fundamentals by the person you're talking to.
What makes you think that the entire process isn't being made more efficient? There are entire papers dedicated to pulling out more FLOPs from GPUs so that less energy is being wasted on simply moving memory around. Of course, there's also inference side optimizations like speculative decoding and MoE. Some of these make the training process more expensive.
The other big problem is that you can always increase the scale to compensate for the energy efficiency. I do wonder if they'll eventually level this off though. If performance somehow plateaus then presumably the efficiency gains will catch up. That being said, that doesn't seem to be a thing in the near future.
I think the concern is that this might somehow enable a privacy policy they weren't aware of that permits training over the entire Drive. However, I think the primary reason for this is that these products generally would like to store data on the user's Google Drive but Google Drive doesn't have super granular permission structure to be able to set up a partitioned directory for the app alone. I actually think that might be a good thing to work on next?
That was my concern too. However, the provided links to both the ToS and privacy policy were the standard Google ones (https://policies.google.com/terms), so it seems not to be giving Opal special privileges to read/train on Drive data.
I think some interviewer with Trump did actually ask him the question you posed and he said something to the effect of "ownership is important" for him _personally_ not necessarily for the _US_ which is the a ridiculous thing to hear from a leader of a country.
reply