Of course those are real issues that should be addressed. Just like if a factory producing bicycles is running all night and keeping you awake. But it's not something that should be concerning for anyone outside the area. It's not an existential crisis, just a local nuisance.
There's absolutely, obviously a place for data centers in our world and country, just like there already has been this entire century so far.
The issue right now is the boom of data center building has them being built wherever approval can be had, rather than in more reasonable industrial locations.
It's reasonable to not want a data center built next to you in the same way it's reasonable to not want an iron smelter or pit mine built next to you. There are reasonable places to build data centers, pit mines, and iron smelters and it's not residential neighborhoods. Building them in residential neighborhoods anyway because they can, is what is forcing this issue to a head.
That and water usage building them in places with water issues. There are a lot of places in the country that don't have water issues. Data can be moved around the country quickly. The problems are solvable, but the builders are more interested in chasing short-term dollar than solving them. The opposition should hopefully reshape the construction into a more reasonable reality.
> But it's not something that should be concerning for anyone outside the area.
Of course. Esp. for the bigger datacenters which generate their own power and release large amounts of emissions to the atmosphere.
It's good that that air never moves and all this emission stays inside the cube formed by the ground, four borders of the datacenter and personal airspace ceiling prescribed by the governments.
Given that the datacenter operators run air purifiers and give the filtered out emissions to government (or licensed 3rd parties) for conversion to carbon credits, there's no harm done.
Just some local noise nuisance, and maybe some heat, but all of them are manageable. Residents can use earplugs and more powerful air conditioners to restore or surpass their previous life quality.
This is not only progress, but how one changes the world for the better.
I hope you keep to your principles and make sure not to lock your doors at night, and don't deny anyone the right to live in your house with you for free if they desire.
Sorry I must brake away from HN guidelines here: But this is an infinitely dumb comparison. I can’t even begin to fathom what kind of endless ignorance and prejudges can possess a person to speak such stupid words.
A persons house is not the same as a border. You are comparing apples to grocery stores here. An immigrant can simply build another house next to mine if they want it. You can have open borders and private residence at the same time. One does not exclude the other.
Typical response. Defending my home isn't racist. And your willingness to use that accusation is pathetic and not really worthy of a response... but understand that a border is the same concept be it for a home, for a community, for a city, or for a nation. Your dismissal is not cogent, it just hides utter misunderstanding of reality, and a desire to make other people pay a price you're not willing to pay yourself.
> understand that a border is the same concept be it for a home, for a community, for a city, or for a nation
People from other cities may enter my city, but people from other homes may not enter my home. These concepts are not the same, nor are they close, nor are they comparable.
They are exactly comparable. The concept is exactly the same. We have borders and protected areas, and it is reasonable to make restrictions on other people based on those borders. It is not racist.
> We have borders and protected areas, and it is reasonable to make restrictions on other people based on those borders.
I agree.
However, in the prior comment you made a much stronger statement, implying that a principled person must, if they open their country's borders, also open their home's borders.
This claim is unreasonable. My city's borders are completely open, and yet my home's borders are not. Similarly, my country's borders can be completely open, without my home's borders needing to be so, too.
> It is not racist.
I did not call you racist, and I agree that doing so does not add value to a discussion.
"Advocating open national borders means you must let random strangers live in your house" a truly reasonable and not at all disingenuous argument. On par with "advocating socialism means you must let random strangers use your toothbrush".
Misrepresenting the argument is not a good look. The argument is that everyone believes in borders. And that borders aren't racist. The only question is where we personally accept them being drawn. But NOBODY believes they're inherently all bad. Not even the people who pretend to do so, and are all too happy to throw around accusations of fascism and racism, to appeal to base emotion rather than logical and practical arguments.
But the person you are responding to didn't say "any and all borders are racist, including borders in your own home". You are the one misrepresenting their argument.
I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse, or you genuinely believe what you're saying. I was the one saying that a border is a border, and you had better have a good explanation as to why the national border is fundamentally different from your home. If it's okay to protect your home, why is it WRONG to protect your country? See? I was putting the OP to the test: why is one just fine, but the other reprehensible? Instead, the OP responded with accusations of racism.
There is a lot of space in my country that is not actively used as living space. On the other hand, 100% of the space in my home is actively used as living space.
Comparing a country and a home is a poor comparison.
Why? An argument stands on its own, regardless of origin. If it's poorly written, by someone who is say a non-native speaker, it can still be a VALUABLE and VALID argument. It would be racist to dismiss an argument because it was poorly written by a non-native speaker. "Racism" against a computer is just as ignorant and petty.
The point is that to the extent it causes certain individuals to lose faith in humanity, or become reclusive, and as a result not reproduce -- it has the effect of altering the overall genetic makeup of subsequent generations. The net result being a population "adapted" to this new environment.
Does it take a human to have agency? Doesn't a cat have agency and desire? What about a worm? Where do you make the cut off, and why? If an AI is programmed with a bias towards creating and following "desires", how is it fundamentally different than what evolution installed in us?
We're way too human focused and dismissive of everything that isn't exactly like us.
> For example, I recently spent 2 weeks researching Bruce Lee ... [AI] output will just be a reiteration of already common knowledge instead of the actual efforts I made researching all of it.
Presumably you researched Bruce Lee by reading and consuming other media related to him, most of which is likely known by the AI models. They just don't have access to any novel idea that you generated, inspired by your research.
Regardless of their current inabilities, which you're correct about, there's no logical reason that in the long term they can't be similarly inspired by considering the same information and making new connections / conjectures just as you did.
We're making the same mistake that the people who dismissed the early airplane made. "That's a neat trick, but it's too limited and not robust enough to be very useful". Not considering how the technology would evolve from the Wright Brother's prototypes.
> Presumably you researched Bruce Lee by reading and consuming other media related to him, most of which is likely known by the AI models. They just don't have access to any novel idea that you generated, inspired by your research.
Yes, assuming they trained on all written works and all his movies, yes. But again, I found several times where AI is just plain wrong about actual facts and it'll reconsider if you provide actual proof that it's wrong. So just because things are in its training cannot be reliable proof that it actually is retrieving them accurately.
As I said, in theory, we don't have to wait for the trick to be useful. I could very easily dump all my research materials and sources as context, provide it a writing guide to generate text exactly as I want, and it'll do it. In fact, it might generate an article exactly equal to what I wrote, but I don't see how it gets to this point independently, especially given the hallucination problem above.
I'm also not claiming it's not useful; it's useful for brainstorming, checking for awkward phrasing, outlining your thoughts, etc. But it is not really good at creative writing. Can it get better in the future? Sure, I'll wait.
1) the hallucination problem is known, and thus in the middle of the crosshairs of half the AI researchers in existence
2) you're assuming you know all Bruce Lee facts, which is the only way you'll distinguish true from false, and the only way you'll be able to correctly identify hallucinations. This is obviously not the case. AI models will get to this point. You won't.
The point will come, and for any reasonable person has long since passed, that any AI knows so many Bruce Lee facts they know 10x more of them than any individual does. And they can just keep writing articles leaving out different subsets of those facts and you will never know
3) everyone actually involved in writing these articles, including writers, publishers, advertisers, ... all have their incentives pointing the same way: towards deceiving you about this, and even towards not caring about it when they get caught.
I'm no fan of the current administration, but this particular loss seems to be a failing of military strategy and leadership, not civilian ineptitude. It's not like the Whitehouse would have picked this staging area or directly controlled other logistics involved.
When the Commander-in-Chief guts the military leadership to ensure loyalists are at the top and instates a fool as the head of the department, is it any wonder what is causing military leadership and strategy failures?
The entire reason we are in this war is the current administration's ineptitude. Anyone who voted for this president should be ashamed they fell for a con.
Here's my hot take. Bush, Clinton, Obama, were all liars. Trump is actually the most honest president I experienced. Partly cause he is so bad at lying, but also cause he wants people to like him. People knew what they were voting for, he did not hide his idiocy.
We won't progress if we don't fix the mistakes that led to where we are. It's not just "Trump bad".
Dude straight up lied to everyone. Most blatantly corrupt incompetent fraud in US history. Just because he's narcissist enough to not care doesn't make it better. And yeah, lots of mistakes to fix that led to McConnell / Dumpty. Mainly erosions of separation of powers. At least the other presidents you mentioned tried to stick to what they campaigned on and didn't try to light fire to the government for personal gain.
I'm not sure "honest" is the right word. Trump loves to lie and make stuff up. It's just usually blatantly obvious, while Trump is also seemingly unable to keep anything secret. Maybe "transparent" is the right word. Just not on purpose
Seriously. The only way to use it is to be a very religious person. You have to pray every single time you use it that your system doesn't become compromised.
reply