Constellation Energy plans to invest $1.6B to revive the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania and sell all the output to Microsoft for AI energy demands.
cnbc.com
tee9000
1 Post – 40 Comments
Joined 1 weeks ago
Im gonna watch harry potter but draco is macho man randy savage
Idk why we need to say we are certain about someones intention. It could just be a mental stability thing, like many people have problems with. His tweets are just far more consequential than a regular persons. He might not be as strongly shaped by social norms due to his fortunate circumstance.
(Im not defending anything. I just want truth and theres no point in extrapolating the situation further than what we see on the surface... just punish him according to what he did, or become a journalist and get relevant details to judge him further)
I really truly suggest diversifying to newsfeeds without comment sections like techmeme for a bit.
Increasing complexity is overwhelming and theres plenty of bad shit going on but theres a lot overblown in your post.
Sorry for the long edit: i personally felt improvement for my mental health when i did this for 6 months or so. Because seriously, whatever disinformation is happening in american news is so exhausting. We need to think whatever we want and then engage with each other when our thoughts are more individualized. Dont be afraid to ask questions that might seem like you are questioning some holy established lemmy/reddit consensus. If you are being honest about your opinions and arent afraid to look dumb then you are doing the internet a HUGE service. We need more dumb questions and vulnerability to combat the obsession of appearing as an expert. So thank you for making a genuine post of concern.
The only one who believes scientology is a religion is the IRS lol
What?
Sorry but a new pico headset wouldnt do much of anything. New meta headset, new valve headset would give a bump.
Really needs better content. The hardware is almost there (in terms of cost and accessibility of the experience).
Its slowly getting there. But the current population of vr users is characterized by: who would play the same limited experiences consistently with hardware that is often cumbersome and loading screens that arent super long but become your entire existence and its annoying.
Meta sucks but they have been a boon for vr development.
HEYY!!!!
thanks for the real discussion and not memeing. i appreciate you. lemmy appreciates you.
True
Its what chaptgpt calls it.
I guess i have been overly defensive against you, but i saw your first semantic argument as being obtuse when to me, saying it was probably a joke does not evaluate to: 'musk is blameless and im siding with him'.
Defining a joke to me, seemed a little combative compared to asking me a clarifying question so i felt like you were trying to discredit me instead of trying to understand, which seemed like punishing a commenter for not aligning with the sentiment of the chain. In hindsight i think your comments were fair...
Forgive the run-on response: The top comment on this chain mentioned it was a joke, and the reply was that it was not a joke. I guess they could have meant that from the perspective of a semantic definition of the word joke. I interpreted it as them saying musk did not intend it as a joke.
When someone says "i was just joking", it does not always mean they delivered a joke by your definition provided above, in fact its usually the case that it doesnt because they are having to tell their audience its not a joke. If i were interpreting "i was just joking" with the intention to accurately understand that person, i would assume they meant: "i wasnt serious", "i thought it was funny to say that", or "whoops that wasnt recieved like i thought it would be".
All that to say: to me, musk genuinely seemed to miscalculate the poor taste of his comment. In my opinion, Musk didnt seem to try to incite violence, which is the basis for the outrage. He is just short-sighted and the consequences are far reaching compared to a normal person saying something which would otherwise just be "a bad joke".
Edit: And yeah to be clear i think he's an idiot. But i dont think he had evil intention here.
Me. Moderate ai enthusiast and software engineer.
Yeah but glad is a feeling you have, not something that makes you try to create a narrative or change reality. Its concerning. Please fix everyone naught.
How could someone convince themselves that this isnt concerning or news? Why dont people want truth?
Approaches in good faith*
Why do you think its so crazy to create an ai god, as you put it (agi)? Can i ask your background on that topic? Im a dumb new software engineer and i use LLMs. They fascinate me with the potential for mass accessible education and quantifying huge amounts of information for new insight.
I know some tech companies are investing a lot into energy solutions because the energy problem seems very real. I agree the acceleration of resource usage seems pretty crazy. Are their any opinions from top minds in the industry that raise similar concerns? Between uneducated memeing doomers on here, and self interested companies using it, its hard to objectively talk about ai. Isnt it kind of like... its here and not going away, and we should be on the cutting edge to not let bad actors capitalize with ai (fraud is crazy rampant since ai).
It scores 83% on a qualifying exam for the international mathematics olympiad compared to the previous model's 13% so...
Unbelievable that someone would be brave enough to do this. Respect... rest in peace.
Show it.
100-250 per month
Their work is making progress. What is irresponsible or dangerous? Im not understanding what you mean.
Sorry but thats not an explanation of your position, thats restating what you just said.
I appreciate the effortful response but i dont think regulators would get caught up on colloquial names when weighing benefit versus harm and deciding to do something like ban a model.
We just arent close enough to the same perspective to discuss it further. Thanks again for the good faith clarification.
Are you kidding? We are one more headline away from saving the fucking world bro
Or counting has gotten worse
Idk i think the only thing religion has going for it is tradition. Scientology is missing the tradition component which makes me think followers are just really dumb ir desparate for connection. Scientologist celebs are trying to cash in their influence by selling it to the church and lying to dumb people to try to get them caught up in a cult.
I dont see a defensible position for someone like that. I would want to know who is doing that and not buy their stuff, personally.
Edit: she was born into it, so im wrong.
Why does ai that has a "reasoning" step become dangerous?
To each their own
I think its the company's responsibility to incorporate a technology to carry out their policy accurately. They cant just use an LLM stock from a vendor. They work to adapt it for their needs and get acceptable results. I think if an llm isnt considerably more accurate than humans then its a disservice to their customers and they should be responsible for that. There should be regulations to keep companies from using models if they dont work
I agree that is a bit of an ethical minefield to employ it to make decisions that affect peoples livelihood. But my point is if a company uses it to decide if an insurance claim should be paid out, the models ability to make those decisions isnt changed by what we call the steps it takes to come to a decision.
If an insurance company can dissect any particular claim decision and agree with each step the model took, then is it really different than having someone do it? Might it be better in some ways? A real concern is the fact that ai isnt perfect and mistakes made are pretty hard to accept... seems pretty dystopian i get that. But if less mistakes are made and you can still appeal decisions then maybe its overblown?
And i really appreciate that. I know im complaining about the worst of lemmy, and there are much better places to find compassion in people than a political sub and these people just want a higher ethical standard in the world... but damn if we dont need a better way to communicate about this stuff.
Idk its their life to do what they want with it.
I get why you would see someone calling it a joke and want to punish that because it was not funny and potentially dangerous.
But it can both be true that he was trying to make a joke, and that he was grossly irresponsible doing so.
You are telling me what i believe (that it wasnt a big deal) and im sorry but this reactive extrapolation of information that is constant and pervasive on sites like lemmy is something i hate and anyone can say im taking it too seriously but it keeps people from engaging/thinking instead of memeing.
Thanks. I sped read and hope its okay if i raise some quick thoughts.
I thought it was interesting how it mentioned LLMs arent a mind that is formed in nature. I would offer a dumb conjecture that agi, while a mind, might still need an LLM as a component to actually handle the amount of data of a society. Like you said, LLMs are useful if you know the answer or at least suspect when to revisit a result. Maybe we are missing the biggest piece of agi, but handling data is really important and this still benefits us right? I think we will need more than a mind from our local nature to create god.
Im a pretty skeptical person. When i used chatgpt i was pretty blown away and wouldnt say i was leaning into the idea that it was sentient. I just saw an incredible new tool, and through using it, now understand the pitfalls and can get awesome results that would have never been achieved with googling in the amount of time i spent. Most all of the heavy lifting i have it do i immediately verify through testing and its correct often enough to realize huge gains over googling and my local library etc..
I think the criticisms of LLMs and their capability arent inaccurate but maybe short sighted? I think criticsms should currently focus on its performance for how we are using it... not how laymens might imagine using something they dont understand. Ultimately any use cases should be heavily tested and perform more accurately than human counterparts (where we are talking about replacement of humans anyway). If we dont find the gains from those applications to validate the power use... or whatever... then we are always capable of recognizing that.
But i think its 100% valid to push back against idealized predictions but i also think shits gonna get crazy. I think theres a lot to be gained, and i question why LLMs cant be a stepping stone to greater computing milestones even if LLMs themselves aren't a component of agi in the end.
What im trying to be convinced of is the criticisms arent as overblown as the hype.
What if you werent right about that though and i was offering my perception based on very little context?
Its just frustrating how stuff gets extrapolated to make me something im not based on nearly zero information about me. Why does it always have to be about who the commenter is instead of the fact that it seemed like elon probably thought he was joking or not being irresponsible? I think hes an idiot who misguidedly pursues free speech for its own sake.
Can you really tell me any response to my comment has good intention to talk about what elon meant? Because it just seems like people want to destroy some unsorted injustice by calling me out for other things i might think.
Yeah i can imagine theres a definition he isnt meeting for him to call it a joke. Im saying i think he truly believes he wasnt being serious. I think he was being edgy and sarcastically accusing democratic elite of an assassination attempt.
And i would expect someone to follow up with how irresponsible that is, and that it still doesnt fit the webster definition of a joke. Please understand that im an imperfect human being who was giving their opinion about their perception of musks intention based on very little context.
Sometimes its impossible to post a comment of your own opinion when it could potentially be percieved as going against what is objectively morally right... when really there is no deeper meaning than my perception.
I dont see that as a call for people to assassinate biden, but a sarcastic accusation that democrats are trying to assassinate trump.
Listen i know most comments are trying to voice a grander opinion but mine is simply a genuine belief that he was being an edgy dumbass who didnt consider how much influence he has over dumb people that might see it as a call to action of some kind.
If you are truly asking me then theres my answer. If you are trying to uncover my secret status as a disinformation agent or something then please... leave me alone.
Idk maybe that democrats are the ones trying to kill trump? That was my first impression anyway.
Who engages with this shit? Get a life.
I mean it was probably a joke.
Personally its the result that matters to me, and whether or not its entertaining regardless of how it was made.