Artificial intelligence doesn’t run on @optimism or buzzwords. It runs on electricity. This seems to be a growing concern as the technology advances, with outlets from Teen Vogue and Wired to the Washington Post and Harvard Business Review publishing articles about AI’s alarming energy and water consumption. The previous AI doomerism now seems to be focused less on AI’s application and more on its use of resources. However, there should be a case for optimism on both energy policy and technology policy regarding this issue.Rather than immediately rushing to fit these growing energy demands into our existing policy frameworks, AI can provide an opportunity to rethink our static models and mental frameworks around energy. Such rethinking provides opportunities for dynamic growth in both technological innovation and energy. If the United States wants to lead the world in AI, policymakers must abandon the illusion that a centrally planned grid can power a decentralized technological revolution. Energy abundance and technological progress thrive when they are built on the same foundation: an open-ended market process with less government intervention.
pull down to refresh
related posts
135 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 21h
Do stackers too wonder if we'll ever get back to times where there are less laws, not just different ones?
reply
100 sats \ 3 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 21h
I think so, it depends on who you ask. I know there are some around here in favor of more deregulation and freedom.
reply
33 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 21h
I woke up this morning thinking "shit isn't going to change". That doesn't happen often. Maybe I just have a bad hair day, lol
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 21h
Time to change your nym to @pessimism
reply
30 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 21h
Based off of one morning? Nah. Maybe after a decade.
I still believe that humanity is awesome. Just I don't believe that we're very good at defending ourselves against getting exploited as a group.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Fenix 13h
As always, it's the energy consumption that will determine whether something is worthwhile or not, and although I believe AI isn't worth all the required energy consumption, I know corporations won't let go of it since it allows them even greater control over individuals; for them that expense is worth it. In an off-grid, individual model, I would have many better ways to spend my energy than on AI.
reply
0 sats \ 12 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 18h
China recognises the strategic nature of power generation.
They have used a simple policy of building more electricity generation capacity to trigger the building of new factories and productivity by private enterprise.
This is a classic example of how a government can drive economic growth and improve a nations competitive advantage.
Cheap electricity does incentivise the building of factories and downstream productivity.
Private ownership of power generation does not have the same overarching incentives- it is much more likely to limit investment in new power generation within its coverage area in order to charge the maximum possible price and thus profit it can extract from its catchment area.
A government has the mandate and incentive to build strategic assets like power generation that can trigger downstream investment in multiple productive enterprises. Private enterprise does not have such a broad mandate and incentive as it is only focused upon maximisation of its profits.
reply
0 sats \ 11 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 18h
In the Western world, we want less government and more freedom for people. The state should only regulate.
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @Fenix 13h
State should not exist
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 13h
You wouldn't last one night alone out in the forest.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Fenix 13h
Is that why you pay the mafia? Are you afraid of being responsible for yourself.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 11h
I pay taxes knowing that government increases my wealth and opportunities.
You are welcome to go live in the forest away from government but you never will -
You are a coward and hypocrit who criticises government but clings to the nation state and the wealth and protection it provides you just like a big ungrateful baby.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Fenix 5h
The government does not provide protection or wealth in any way, they are just people. They start wars that they won't fight and steal from you to pay for them, they regulate and lock up wealth based on arbitrary wishes of whoever holds the pen. You are deeply trapped in the statist scam.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 2h
Please study some history.
Deal with the real world.
Humans are weak as individuals.
We have formed groups to gain security and resources for all of human history.
Those who do not form the strongest groups become slaves.
reply on another page
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 17h
I am not against freedom but I am against cartels and monopolies and crony capitalism.
That is my point- there are areas of economic development and strategy which private enterprise does not deliver the best result on.
For example- rare earths- Chinas government has directed capital investment into making China the dominant refiner of rare earths because they represent a raw material that is of huge strategic importance.
Private enterprise in the west has been and is unable to compete on price with the Chinese state sponsors rare earths supply chains.
Now belatedly western governments are directing capital toward the mining and refining of rare earths so that China cannot hold the west to ransom- but it will take years, perhaps decades with huge government subsidies to come anywhere near the west having its own rare earths supply chains.
This is but one example of the many where government involvement in supply chains and infrastructure is essential to supporting the competitive advantage of economies....pure free markets simply cannot achieve the required results...instead they will leave you vulnerable as has happened with rare earths.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 17h
The biggest cartel out there is the government, and that same government keeps total control over its own people. We don't want that. What we do want is the state to just regulate stuff. If they even do that right, that's already a huge win.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 17h
The government can be a negative force and it can be a positive force as my argument above details.
You have not responded to the points I have raised regarding where governments can have huge effects on markets where they act or fail to act.
Good government certainly does not keep total control over its people- good government works with its people and markets to maximise their wealth and security....as I have pointed out above that sometimes involves participating in strategic markets...
You have failed to respond to the examples and points I have raised showing where government involvement is essential and government lack of involvement is pure negligence.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner OP 17h
You must've misread that. I already answered everything, just used less words. The government should regulate and let the private sector handle the rest. The government is the main reason stuff is so inefficient with money.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 17h
You have not read and understood let alone responded to the points I raise.
Here it is again for you-
For example- rare earths- Chinas government has directed capital investment into making China the dominant refiner of rare earths because they represent a raw material that is of huge strategic importance.
Private enterprise in the west has been and is unable to compete on price with the Chinese state sponsors rare earths supply chains.
Now belatedly western governments are directing capital toward the mining and refining of rare earths so that China cannot hold the west to ransom- but it will take years, perhaps decades with huge government subsidies to come anywhere near the west having its own rare earths supply chains.
This is but one example of the many where government involvement in supply chains and infrastructure is essential to supporting the competitive advantage of economies....pure free markets simply cannot achieve the required results...instead they will leave you vulnerable as has happened with rare earths.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 18h
Here in New Zealand previous right wing governments sold off the state owned electricity generators - they are now all partly owned by private shareholders.
When power generators can form a cartel as these now do they have limited incentive to build more power generation capacity as limiting supply means they can charge much higher prices for what is available.
This is precisely what has happened- introducing private ownership and the profit motive has resulted in rising power prices and a deficit of new power generation.
Libertarians seem totally blind to the reality that private for profit operators of strategic assets can and do use their market dominance to extract maximum profits...in the case of power generators this places an additional cost burden on all downstream businesses and consumers reducing the competitive advantage of the entire nation.
Why are libertarian 'free market rules' ideologs blind to this reality???
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner OP 18h
I don't know how it is in New Zealand, but here things usually work way better when they're private and the government just regulates it. energy is a perfect example.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 17h
Usually is probably correct- I agree most/many markets are perfectly well served by a free market but my argument remains that some markets require government involvement and if left to 'free market' are vulnerable to cartels, cronyism, rentseeking and damaging effects on the wider economy.
A contemporary example of considerable significance and effect that I have given elsewhere on this thread is the rare earths supply chains. Free enterprise alone has not not been adequately incentivised to invest and compete in this market meaning government involvement is required unless you want to become hostage to Chinese supply chains.
reply