Bill Gates says not to worry about AI's energy draw
Bill Gates says not to worry about AI's energy draw
Can I worry about the fact the most serious AI's are owned by large companies, and that they are being taught to replace artists, writers and creatives?
What a sad fucking dystopia we live in.
Oh Gates what a lovely altruistic human billionaire.
Ricky says Bill Gates needs to shut the fuck up. You have thousands of times more money than any human will ever need leave the rest of us alone you fucking demon.
As he counts his money.
If he was counting his money in $100 bills it would still take him about 40 years,
Edit: assuming he counts 1 $100 bill per second
Of all the celebrity billionaire parasites this one is the one I hate the most. At least Elon and Bezos has the decency to show us what scumbags they are... they don't call Gates "No.1 Sugar Daddy To The PR industry" for nothing.
While shooing folks away from a curtained-off area.
Bill Gates says the massive power draw required for AI processing is nothing to worry about as AI will ultimately identify ways to help cut power consumption and drive the transition to sustainable energy.
We already know how
Yeah, this is one of the many things that annoys me about AI discourse.
"We can use it to solve climate change!"
We already technically know how to solve climate change, but politics makes doing that impossible.
And, no, AI can't "fix" politics. We're going to have to figure that out by ourselves.
Climate scientists: "do these things to fix climate change"
Everyone: "but that's HAAARD and I don't wanna!"
AI developers: create AI
Climate scientists: "AI is drawing massive power accelerating climate change, we need to stop that"
Everyone: "but it can tell us how to fix climate change so it's going to be okay!"
AI climate model: "do these same things to fix climate change"
Everyone: "but that's HAAARD and I don't wanna!"Yeah, I can't see any way this could possibly fail...
but now we have a scapegoat
In a way AI refusing to recommend using so much computing power on LLMs could well be the first sign of actual intelligence.
Ai told my power company to tell us to stop using energy during the day beucase ai needs the power to do the power co.pqnies jobs
Sure lets burn all the oil to figure out how to not burn all the oil.
That should be enough to worry anybody.
From the guy who said 640Kb is enough for anyone..
Bill Gates says the massive power draw required for AI processing is nothing to worry about as AI will ultimately identify ways to help cut power consumption and drive the transition to sustainable energy.
The final solution the AI comes up with: Cut the power of the poor, euthanize the old and weak.
If it were actually AI I might have some faith.
This isn't a neural net processor, not a learning computer. It's a fucking mechanical Turk. A bad one.
What he's talking about isn't capable of deriving new ideas. It's just going to spit out shit it's seen already.
The library of Babel is just as likely to give us the answers he's talking about. More likely maybe because it's at least already written down.
I wonder if all this is to burn enough energy to make ignorant people believe that we have AI. And then use that AI as a justification of the existing order of things, the same way "civil contract" is. That it's not really technical, but rather a very big and expensive propaganda campaign for abolishing democracies.
Wow, that is so dumb. I saw some crack pot dude trying to solve unsolved physics problems by using prompts like "imagine you are Einstein, then how would you solve: ...". Good to see he is not alone, but has Bill fucking Gates with similarly dumb AI takes.
This is even more dumb when even Joan f-g Rowling in her books about magic for children described how and why magic can't do this. One of the reasons I like Harry Potter - not for the plot or the human part, but for the magic there being quite similar to computers in our time. With similar limitations, except for unique cases.
So no matter how much one hates Rowling (I don't, she's done more good than evil by far still), she's smarter and more decent than most of the humanity. That sucks.
And make paperclips.
Dead wrong. AI is not as reliable as their makers would like to believe. AI is more likely to adopt all the flaws of humanity than make anything “better.” A subjective term.
It's a text generator. All these people, were they to live in Antiquity, would jump ship to ship trying to visit every oracle and prophet in the Mediterranean asking questions about universe and seeking deep meaning in short texts of the Chinese fortune cookie kind.
how about euthanize the entire planet? Just put us out of our fucking misery already goddamn
Mr anti climate change says not to worry when it benefits him.
Fuck bill gates, fucking nepo-baby
I say shut up.
They gonna be hawking these cliff notes machines even as the last breathable air disappears.
Okay thanks Bill, I won’t.
Actually frees up some time on the old to-do list!
Look out Saturday, cuz here comes Millhouse!
Alright, but if I end up getting stuffed in a goo-filled pod so the AI can suck my energy out through a massive plug in the back of my head, I'm gonna be pretty upset.
It's not going to be in the back of your head.
Bill gates accepts your terms
640kW should be enough for anyone.
I have to admit, this one took me a minute 🙂
Wait, is that a random number, or the actual scale of the power draw we're talking about?
'Cause that's fuck-all when we're talking about industrial level power draw.
I originally had MW but changed it to be more in line with the supposed original quote.
Well as long as Bill says it's cool, I guess I don't have to form my own opinion
We should at least hear what Ja Rule has to say
I'd prefer to hear 50's opinion over Ja Rule
So if we light the planet on fire to fuel the AI, the AI will then tell us how to put the fire out.
Okay sure, but how about we just... don't do any of that?
The AI solution will be to stop producing food. That would save enormous amounts of energy.
No more food, but here's half a pound of cricket flour. Meets all your daily nutritional needs!
Feeding humans is not needed to keep the world saving AI running, so why would we even bother?
I mean, directly manufacturing nutrients from raw chemicals is probably more efficient than going through other middleman lifeforms first.
If this isn't the most cynical message forum then I don't know what is.
Breaking: Rich tech guy thinks that the energy draw from rich tech projects is nothing to worry about.
Bill Gates shouldn't worry about people wanting to make a tent from his skin.
Fuck it. Gun it at the brick wall. Jerry's rigging up an emergency break as we speak. Don't mind that the last piece to said break may be missing.
- Man who will probably die before we hit the wall
oh okay
Oh, gotcha. So crypto mining is bad, because he can't make money off of it. But AI is just fine, because he can make tons of money off of it. I understand now. Makes perfect sense.
Rich billionaire twat who owns a shitload of Microsoft shares says AI is good, don't let the bubble burst. More at ten.
Don’t forget about him spending time on Epstein’s island with a bunch of underage girls.
Or how the Gates foundation fought for the Oxford COVID vaccine NOT to be open sourced, and instead sold for profit, so that it wouldn't undermine his pharma stocks.
Oxford university had previously secured funding from the UK gov to develop the vaccine under the expectation they open source it so that poorer countries would have greater vaccine access and the rollout could be faster.
Are we absolutely sure it's real Bill Gates and not Robot Bill Gates? I mean he's had bad takes before but maybe it's best to be sure?
Iceland figured this out some years ago, and now they make heaps exporting computing power to international AI compute buyers.
They do it with a naturally cold climate, and loads of geo-thermal power.
Ah yes, classic tech solutionism.
"No need to be frugal, the tech will evolve and fix the causes of climate change!"
We need a solution right now, not in a decade, dumb ass. So frugality is the answer.
To quote the post more specifically:
Even as our species destroys its only home, we assume that the solutions to climate change must lie in technology, without stopping to examine the role that this very attitude has played in the crisis.
This is so deeply ingrained in our social consciousness that, when there is a new impressive technology, we assume that it must be here to solve one of our big problems. As the AI hype quickens the pace of our ecological devastation, we're so dazzled by the technology that there is actual debate in supposedly serious publications as to whether AI is going to save us from climate change, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary.
Frugality is what powers evolution. These people don't want evolution, they want to build a religion.
Suddenly I'm worried about AI's energy draw. "6 percent of global electricity" is not a small amount of electricity.
I wish to live in a world where the media doesn't consist of articles about how some rich or famous person says or thinks something.
There may be others reasons to interview Bill Gates about AI than the fact that he's rich and famous.
Ah, okay, thanks Bill 👍
And that's why he's so rich.
Least insane techno-optimist
This screams FAITH (Filthy Assumptions Instead of THinking) from a distance, on multiple levels:
- Assuming that the current machine learning development will lead to artificial general intelligence. Will it?
- Assuming that said AGI would appear in time to reduce power consumption. Will it?
- Assuming that lowering the future power consumption will be enough to address issues caused by the current power consumption. Will it?
- Assuming that addressing issues from a distant future means that the whole process won't cause harm for people in a nearer future. Will it?
Furthermore, Gates in the quote is being disingenuous:
"Let's not go overboard on this," he said. "Datacenters are, in the most extreme case, a 6 percent addition [to the energy load] but probably only 2 to 2.5 percent. The question is, will AI accelerate a more than 6 percent reduction? And the answer is: certainly," Gates said.
The answer addresses something far, far more specific than the main issue.
If I may, here's my alternative solution for the problem, in the same style as Gates':
Kill everyone between the North Pole and the Equator.
What do you mean, it would kill 85% people in the world? Well, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs, right? Nobody that I know personally lives there, so Not My Problem®. (Just keep Japan, I need my anime to watch.)
...I'm being clearly sarcastic to deliver a point here - it's trivially easy to underestimate issues affecting humankind, and problems associated with their solutions, if you are not directly affected by either. Gates is some billionaire bubbled around rich people; this sort of problem will affect the poor first, as the rich can simply throw enough money into their problems to make them go away.
Okbuddyretard or wowthanksimcured?
Another attempt to approach king Midas' powers by turning matter into shit, because apparently if we can turn it into shit, then eventually we'll learn to turn it into gold.
It's amazingly stupid. Among other things because it's been described by Lem in either "Summa Technologiae" or "Megabit Bomb", I don't remember which. Possibly both.
But one doesn't have to read Lem for the concept of entropy.
It just feels so boring. People with power showing with all their herd that they don't deserve that power, because they don't understand simple concepts.
Said a guy banging a Russian ballet dancer while married.
Should we really listen to a guy like that?
Epstein hooked it up for the downvoters :)
I mean his life, who cares.
He was on flights to Epstein's Island. Everyone should care
Depends on how the person he's married to feels about it. I don't know how they define their relationship.
She divorced him