I’ve done this for a game I play. I’ve no interest in learning unity, but had a bunch of mods I’d like to make that are more than config edits. I was able to vibe code about 5 of them in an evening or two that do exactly what I want. They’re probably terrible code, but nothing else is built on top of them, I’m not distributing them and if they break they break no big deal. So pretty happy with it.
Their model for folding proteins worked, is complete and access is given freely to researchers for use. I’m not sure what you think they should be working on now, are the people who made it supposed to just never move on to new projects?
That’s not how this works though, hoping the law to just punishes people you don’t like without regard for what they are being punished for is madness.
If Anthropic lose this they’ll shrug pay a fee to licence things out of the untold billions they have available to them from credulous investors, and everyone else will have lost the right to do whatever they want with a copyrighted work without the publisher’s permission. That people who consider themselves progressive think that’s a win boggles my mind.
Yeah, Torvalds is such a dummy! You’re certainly much smarter than him.
No the point is that a Japanese focused company can optimise for a design that works best in Japan without having to consider how other people would interact with it.
A multinational like Amazon has to balance what works best in a particular market with retaining a consistent identity across markets and having shared functionality between different locations.
And yet, despite that, France still has some of the cleanest electricity in the world with prices in line with the rest of Europe and exported about 10TWhrs of electricity during July.
I agree that downtime is bad, but I don’t think abandoning nuclear to go all in on solar which has a minimum downtime of 50% or wind which has extended periods of <10% is a solution to that. Given that we need electrification to replace fossil fuels in transport and heating over the next few decades to prevent catastrophic climate change, the only reasonable course IMO is to build out as much as possible of nuclear and renewables.
Turns out, even when you have to throttle them down slightly due to drought, having a large amount of available nuclear power, like France and Sweden do, means you emit an awful lot less carbon.
Was supposed to say illegal, the argument didnt work with saying legal.
The difference is that a hand grenade is illegal to own. A series of matrix multiplications is not.
A better comparison is a knife. If you throw that in the air and it lands on someone you are responsible, the person who sold you a potentially dangerous but legal tool is not.
Edit illegal, not legal. silly mistake
I know you think you’re being witty, but autonomous robotic surgery is a hot tech that is starting to push into active use.
Deleting (or editing) comments does not change what the hosting website has, it just updates what they display. so there will be lines in a database saying:
There isnt a way for you to remove that unless there is some legal mechanism for you to force them to remove all data about you.
“net zero energy use” isn’t a meaningful term. We can talk about net zero carbon as it is part of a cycle where carbon both has sources (burning fossil fuels, respiration of animals) and sinks (forests, oceans, wetlands, artificial carbon capture) so the two sides can balance to zero on net.
There is no “net” when it comes to energy usage, it is either used or it isn’t. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with using energy, in harnessing energy is what allows increases of standard of living fundamentally. We need to stop the negative externalities of certain types of energy generation (primarily fossil fuels).
Starlink sats are of the order of 20-50kW, an AI focused rack in a data centre is on the order of 100kW, powering the things is definitely feasible.
Unlike:
All of which are somewhere between horrible and impossible for data centres in space.
Power is pretty much the only part of space data centres that does make sense. You can put them in an orbit to get 24hr solar power and its stronger than on the ground as there’s no atmosphere in the way. Large foldable solar panels are available, and unlike radiators you don’t have to pump liquids through them.
Other than hype (which is by far the major driving force behind companies talking about them) access to that power without regulation is the reason you would want to put them in space.
Most forms of casino gambling except card games are purely random: dice, roulette, slot machines. I agree with you that there being an element of skill or knowledge doesnt stop it being gambling however.
That’s utterly ridiculous.
It takes at least 5 seconds to turn on a VPN and reload a page.
Huh? There’s no reasons for rivers to not run north, the longest river in the world runs south to north.
A) electricity is only a small fraction of energy use, as I stated before
B) there are also areas where none of the energy use is AI, cherry picking small regions to make your argument is dishonest
I’ll try one last time, but I won’t respond again. Its fine to think AI is a waste and energy shouldn’t be spent on in. Saying that it is worth the deaths of thousands of people in order to cut carbon emissions by a fraction of a percent makes you a psychopath.
Even putting aside the very real political ick around DHH, why does a bunch of preset configs on top of Arch need millions in funding?