no notes

[yenndc@kolektiva.social]

@karl

Reference, for whoever might care…

https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-choose-ai-climate-goals-data-center-chief-warns/

[a_goodall_spaceship@norden.social]

@cucufaiter @karl 9 minutes? Yep same with me, spent all my tokens, query still running.

[cucufaiter@mastodon.social]

@a_goodall_spaceship @karl miliseconds xD

[saxnot@chaos.social]

@Hex @karl @sherbang @orange_lux @dibi58 100 % agreed

the AI hype is absolute madness
can't wait for the bubble to burst

[jens@social.finkhaeuser.de]

@karl Clear choice there, except for absolute idiots who think they can exist without the environment their species is adapted to.

[nini@oldbytes.space]

@dibi58 @karl Then more focus on machine learning, less on large language models? I agree, LLMs are a hideous waste by design.

[nini@oldbytes.space]

@rumpelheinz @karl Ein gutes Argument dafür, warum wir keine KI brauchen.

[karl@infosec.exchange]

@nini @dibi58 there's an in-between where you still train an LLM but it's more focused, but in essence, yes.

[nini@oldbytes.space]

@karl @dibi58 Can't see why LLMs need to be involved, they're not very good and the sheer amount of effort in training an LLM from data collection to tagging to getting anything useful out of it is in opposition to any climate goals, moderate as even the most radical ones proposed will be.

[karl@infosec.exchange]

@nini @dibi58 I would like to see research supporting such an assertion.

I dislike LLMs very much, which I why I don't want to make unsubstantiated claims that can be debunked by LLM supporters, which would discredit any other concern, however valid, that I have with LLMs.

[dc4dd@sueden.social]

@karl Politico is Springer Press

[lispi314@udongein.xyz]

@orange_lux@eldritch.cafe @dibi58@this.mouse.rocks @karl@infosec.exchange Technically, given the kind of compute for energy ratios that human brains (and other dynamic nanosystems) manage to accomplish, it should be quite possible to accomplish with synthetic biology.

We just need to get much better at it and forget ever accomplishing it on static compute (stop even trying, the efficiency is too bad).

The efficiency of digital static compute is laughably bad at the best of times.

[uriel@bbs.keinpfusch.net]

@lispi314 @orange_lux @karl @dibi58

> synthetic biology.

we don't really need this. There are so many bacteria and neural cells available, with billions of  years of evolution...

--
Uriel Fanelli
Using Aktor: https://git.keinpfusch.net/loweel/Aktor-2
XMPP: uriel@keinpfusch.net
old blog: https://blog.keinpfusch.net
new blog: https://keinpfusch.net

[lispi314@udongein.xyz]

@ALewpqX9B5hLrwnPl2.uriel@bbs.keinpfusch.net @orange_lux @karl @dibi58 That's a question of degrees at that point.

Even if you use building blocks that already exist, isn't it synthetic?

Similar to a hammer, all the components remain natural (since they clearly exist to start with), but intelligent intervention was involved in its making. That at least is the distinction I draw.

There's no particular reason to recreate it entirely from scratch unless you very specifically want to make it deliberately incompatible with the rest of the biosphere.

[prefec2@norden.social]

@karl in that case. No data centers.

[hammerwell@troet.cafe]

@karl They need to really think about that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPQNPJ0CEPo

[raspberryswirl@chaos.social]

@karl we have #gaskathi katharina reiche

[retrocomputing@mastodon.social]

@karl Shameless

[divverent@misskey.de]

@karl@infosec.exchange So this is how the fight of humans vs machines will go.

[superdicq@minidisc.tokyo]

@karl@infosec.exchange The data center lobby is right. We must choose for the climate and we will have less AI. I like these lobbyist presenting us a scenario with zero downsides.