It's basically talking about the impact on the environment and which class of society will end up benefiting from AI. I thought the article was pretty clear, and a message we as a society should be discussing more, especially with the current state of things.
With that said, the article reads like it's been through an AI pass, and not as concise and direct as it could be.
"GPU compute powering crypto for the last decade..."
I keep hearing this lately. Also, that GPU compute has been re-purposed from crypto to AI.
I had the impression that crypto was powered by ASICs for the last... many years. And that was why GPU mining (let alone CPU mining) was not profitable
I don't understand how you could compare crypto, which has no utility and no fair value, with AI which is used by hundreds of millions of people every day to achieve real outcomes.
No, AI tokens aren’t generic, they by definition cannot be used as a currency because they aren’t fungible. Generated tokens have completely different value depending on their meaning. You can spend 1M tokens doing nothing but wasting time and energy, then spend 100K tokens that bring a lot of value. It’s even weirder because we don’t have a way to know the ROI of tokens in advance
“You ingested the vast majority of available human knowledge to build your product, and intend to change the entire world with it, and in fact are doing so incredibly rapidly at a rate that dodges scrutiny. Could we know more?” Would be the expanded version I guess
The OPs framing is better. Where does anyone say there’s a requirement to share data as demanded because you used a publicly available resource. These companies have created something world changing that everyone uses now, that you can get for free or for a very small amount of money. They certainly don’t need to indulge anyone’s nosing or whatever this is, the argument is ridiculous.
Quite a few of the usual suspects are involved in Crypto, NFT’s, “Metaverse”, and now AI. You’d think people would figure it out, but there’s the old Upton Sinclair quote I guess.
How much you spend on something does have an indication on what the utility is for you. Though people spent on all the other hype things so at the time those things also had some utility for that user.
the metaverse went from being about owning your identity and digital possessions to mostly being about buying jpegs. once collectibles and nft speculation became the headline, it was hard to explain why any of the underlying technology mattered. after that, most people just associated the whole thing with speculation rather than the original vision.
which is a shame, I still feel like VR is full of untapped potential
With that said, the article reads like it's been through an AI pass, and not as concise and direct as it could be.
I keep hearing this lately. Also, that GPU compute has been re-purposed from crypto to AI.
I had the impression that crypto was powered by ASICs for the last... many years. And that was why GPU mining (let alone CPU mining) was not profitable
Major cryptocurrencies are based on Proof of Work or Proof of Stake. There are other consensus algorithms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrypt#Introduction
Scrypt has been introduced to stave off ASIC and FPGA solutions.
Ummm ... have you not tried using LLMs for coding work?
"You read my blog so now show me your utility bill" is... an interesting argument.
Or hell, 2 years ago with "those fucking apes", aka NFTs.
Or, the Meta-Verse. Yeah, that really took.... Off.
I pay OpenAI $100/mo, twice what I pay for my mobile phone service.
It’s a useful service that I use every day.
I have never even heard of anyone in my social circle expressing even a mild interest in tulips, NFTs, or the metaverse.
This bubble has much more in common with the rail road boom and the 2000 fibre build out bubble.
which is a shame, I still feel like VR is full of untapped potential