AI’s voracious need for computing power is threatening to overwhelm energy sources, requiring the industry to change its approach to the technology, according to Arm Holdings Plc Chief Executive Officer Rene Haas.

  • crispyflagstones
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I don’t like these companies for their cooperation/friendly attitude towards nation-states either, but your comments are insipid. AWS has like 2 million businesses as customers. They have 30% marketshare in the cloud space, of course they provide cloud services to cops and militaries. They’re cheap, and one of the biggest providers, period. I can’t find any numbers showing their state contracts outweigh their business contracts.

    And, sure, plenty of those business contracts are for businesses that don’t do anything useful, but what you don’t seem to understand is that telecoms is vital to industry and literally always has been. It’s not like there’s a bunch of virtuous factories over here producing tons of steel and airplanes, and a bunch of computers stealing money over there. Those factories and airlines you laud are owned by businesses, who use computers and services like AWS to organize and streamline their operations. Computers are a key part of why any industry is as productive as it is today.

    AI, and I don’t so much mean LLM’s and stable diffusion here, even if they are fun and eye-catching algorithms, will also contribute to streamlining operations of those virtuous steel foundries and airlines you approve so heartily of. They’re not counterposed to each other. Researchers are already making use of ML in the sciences to speed up research. That research will be applied in real-world industry. It’s all connected.

    Its not for you to worry about. The decision to rapidly consume cheap energy and potable water is entirely beyond your control. Might as well find a silver lining in the next hurricane.

    By the same token, you shouldn’t worry about it either? So insipid.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      AWS has like 2 million businesses as customers.

      None of them hold a candle to the Wild and Stormy Cloud Computing contact issued by the NSA.

      • crispyflagstones
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I don’t like defending Amazon, but your arguments are shockingly ignorant. Stop making things up on the spot and do a shred of research. The cost of the Wild and Stormy contract is ~half a billion, while AWS’s annual revenues are projected to top $100 billion this year.

        So, less than half a percent of AWS’s annual revenues. Stop just making shit up off the cuff.

          • crispyflagstones
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            If you do the numbers out on that, the volume doubles to 1% of gross revenues over that time period. Not really bolstering the point you were trying to make here, but you did catch me merely skimming the article because of how dull and bad this conversation is. This conversation is pointless because at the end of the day, AI is literally just a potentially very useful tool, which is why everybody’s freaking out about it. Being against AI as such just because bad people are also using it is kind of pointless.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              the volume doubles to 1% of gross revenues

              One contract from one state agency worth 1% of all your gross revenues is substantial.

              you did catch me merely skimming the article because of how dull and bad this conversation is

              Uh huh. Okay.

              • crispyflagstones
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                Yeah, you were trying to argue AWS is basically for the NSA and cops. That hilariously false claim is what I’ve been consistently rebutting this entire time. You’re moving the goalposts and continuously have this entire conversation, which is why this is a dull and bad conversation. You didn’t start out arguing that 1% is “substantial.” You made a rather different argument. I never disputed that a contract amounting to 1% of a company’s annual revenues is significant, I disputed that that 1% means AWS is just a cop shop. Because that’s not how anything works.

                You were wrong, and you were making shit up, and you’re moving the goalposts to avoid having to admit being wrong.

                • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  My guy, you’re arguing with yourself at this point. At the least, learn to read your own material before you try to fact check someone.

                  • crispyflagstones
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    6 months ago

                    I usually do, when the other person in the conversation doesn’t seem like an insincere ass and I’m not looking up an open and shut factual question I already know the answer to, like “is the majority of AWS’s business from cops and the NSA?”

                    And I was off by like half a percent because I skimmed, and that half a percent doesn’t actually make your point for you. We’re not arguing because you have no arguments