kippinitreal

I don't think you realize the work involved in integrating a new unreliable power source into the grid. Its a delicate dance to anticipate demand to keep power always available. Having more power than you need is bad for the grid, which is why the costs go negative: power companies want it off the grid ASAP.

Conventional power stations can stay on all the time & that's awesome for the grid stability. There is no power gap renewables are filling. So to turn solar on we need to turn off a coal powered plant. If this new source cannot match the reliability it hinders to grid than help. So there's no question of "turn it off when you don't need it".

We need to turn off fossil fuel power generation for more renewables, sure, but it doesn't alleviate their problems right now.

Ok, but what do you do when you're short of power at night? Keep in mind to turn on conventional power stations it's expensive & time consuming. Once they startup they need to stay on for a long while to be efficient & cheap.

The real solution is to store excess power in batteries. Lithium ion is too expensive to scale, Sodium ion batteries are economically & capacity viable AFAIK.

Spot on! I hoped this comment would be higher! The main problem isn't corps not making money, but grid stability due to unreliability of renewables.

To be fair, the original tweet is kinda shit to begin with. They've unnecessarily assigned monetary value to a purely engineering (physics?) problem.

That's interesting. I'm not going to lament the death of the old studios system. Sure it worked some of the time, but it was mostly bloat. Side benefit of this being, as Stewart points out, people who loved their craft got a chance to get better at it over time.

Instead of cutting the inefficiencies, silicon valley "disrupted" the system, aka undercut existing systems at a loss for the all valuable market share. Now that they're competing with themselves, they're squeezing everyone involved: creatives, technicians & the audience to make their unsustainable business model magically sustainable. The illusion "tech will save us all" is failing, AI & everything-as-a-service is their last hope.

I don't know what the alternative is? Pandoras box is open, we can't go back to the older system anymore.

That is a good point, but I think I'd like to make the distinction of saying LLM's or "generic model" is a garbage concept, which require power & water rivaling a small country to produce incorrect results.

Neural networks in general that can (cheaply) learn on their own for a specific task could be huge! But there's no big money in that, since its not a consolidated general purpose product tech bros can flog to average consumers.

That's an excellent point! Why oh why would a tech bro start a non-profit? Its always been PR.

Putting my tin foil hat on... Sam Altman knows the AI train might be slowing down soon.

The OpenAI brand is the most valuable part of the company right now, since the models from Google, Anthropic, etc. can beat or match what ChatGPT is, but they aren't taking off coz they aren't as cool as OpenAI.

The business models to train & run models is not sustainable. If there is any money to be made it is NOW, while the speculation is highest. The nonprofit is just getting in the way.

This could be wishful thinking coz fuck corporate AI, but no one can deny AI is in a speculative bubble.

Can't SAGAftra do something about this? Was this not included in the strikes earlier?

Didn't think it'd work, but a lucky guess!

Wordle 1,186 3/6

⬜🟨🟨⬜🟨
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Fixed & noted. Thanks!

They greedy af. They've lobbied (bribed?) to keep the corp taxes as low as possible. Then they go Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich and NOT pay the low taxes anyways. If we were to tax them appropriately then it'd be a helluva lot more than 13b imo

• Stares in potential energy *