Canals were at least solving a problem that actually existed and needed solving at the time when they were started. AI data centres are being built in anticipation of future demand, for use cases that haven't been developed yet.
post
At least canals are still useful to have around for recreational watersports.
The Internet has ruined me because I can't read the word "watersports" without thinking of the fetish anymore.
Not really. Most of these old canals were only a couple yards/meters wide and dried up 100 years ago.
But are they only 3 feet deep? /s
If they're only a couple meters wide, how the heck are they supposed to fit watercraft?
The canal in my uni town was immediately replaced by the railways pretty much the instant it was completed. They’re pretty cool though - you can walk along it, go on a narrowboat, canoe, fish out shopping trolleys, hide bodies, catch dysentery, or get attacked by Canada Geese.
Over 3,000 data centers are planned in the U.S., and I am not imagining they’re being built so everyone can generate slop to their heart’s content. Recent events like OpenAI becoming an official member of the military industrial complex and the F.B.I.’s deal with Flock make me think they’re largely being built as infrastructure for the digital cage.
Fun Fact: the Panic of 1837 was caused by Andrew Jackson's idiotic idea to pay off the national debt by stealing land and selling it, which crashed the real estate market. Jackson had also refused to continue the American central banking charter so there were basically no tools to fight it.
He is literally Trump's favorite president. You know, the real estate guy fighting with the Fed.
The US profits a lot from having so many waterways. When they are usable, they literally are the cheapest and most efficient mode of transportation.
Railroads replaced canals in the Midwest because the canals weren't large enough to handle a lot of cargo, unlike the Suez or Panama canals. The canals here are maybe 20ft wide, and locks were maybe 50ft long. Trying to modify them to handle more cargo would have cost tremendous amounts of money and also disable the canals while they were being worked on.
Trains were simply able to carry significantly more cargo to their destination in less time
Pretty terrible metaphor as realistically even without AI we will never need less compute. Compute is awesome, it's a good thing to have more. The problem is the environmental damage not anything else.
That makes the metaphor imperfect, but the data centers are being paid with circular money that isn't there, based on the assumption that AI will make obscene amounts of money to actually pay their bills when currently they're losing lots of investor money to subsidize the price, and they're already talking about transitioning to a usage based system, which might push some enterprises to use a FOSS alternative from China.
We're in a bubble, when it pops it's likely many data center projects will be abandoned before they're done.
isn't that a good thing though? let billionaires lose money then just don't bail them out. Either way the datacenters will remain useful and might actually benefit real work. This is btw how we got a lot of open technologies where corporate overinvests and then community takes over.
Considering the MIC is in bed with AI corporations I worry they will get bailed out to some extent, and that the gains will remain completely private, with taxpayers being expected to foot the bill (or alternatively, dealing with the inflation while their wages remain stagnant). I hope you're right though, I really want there to be a positive in the end, I'm just skeptical on this front.
The silver lining to me is that there's encouraging developments in FOSS AI, developed mainly in China. Maybe after the crash we can get somewhat cheaper GPUs to run them locally.
I think it'll be really hard to bail AI out on public funds with current reputation if bubble pops.
However I think real risk is not full bail but constant leeching of public funds to private enterprise. This is not new to AI and this datacenter issue is exactly that - have people bear the environmental costs for private gains of datacenters. The other argument that US "doesn't need datacenters" is just bad - that's not the issue, everyone will need more datacenters forever basically.
encouraging developments in FOSS AI, developed mainly in China.
I wouldn't really trust China's open source commitments though. FOSS is non-existent in chinese culture and it's directly a competitive response to american corporate models. That being said, a good deed done for bad reasons still can be good!
Honestly if AI would gracefully decline now and we just had open source models we'd still have work for the next 10 years implementing these tools.
Historically speaking it's most often your average citizen that pays for it in the end.
Ideally, we wouldn't build infinite compute, just as much as we are actually using, and using it efficiently allows you to build less. We would still need datacenters even without LLMs, but they wouldn't need to be so gargantuan, because even the worst, inefficient, nodejs-based, intern-written server you could ever encounter, would be heaps more efficient (or at least less demanding) than any LLM. This is true even from an economical point of view, or any practical point of view, not just environmental.
To quote Tannenbaum: "You know you have the right computer when you are always using 99% of it. If you are using 100%, you are being limited by the machine. If you are using 98% you have bought more than you need". If datacenters were always running at 40%, we would build bigger ones.
The choice to compare data centers to canals rather than to railroads seems rather arbitrary.
Just think, after the systems-manufactured destitute addicts clean out the rare metals from those industrial pustules, the whole country's houseless will have homes, right?
Right?
Differencr that railway is still the absolute best and most efficient way
top 50 comments