this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
345 points (95.0% liked)

Technology

60101 readers
2703 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The cost of the Wild and Stormy contract is ~half a billion

It's ten billion.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 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