Ireland implemented this last year, 100% wind or solar generation match by each new data centre project.

This problem is not that hard to legislate solutions to, Americans have just cucked themselves with terrible choices.

Yeah I see that’s about the limit of your aspirations here.

Its good to feel like you have purpose, even if its just one simple thing 🙏

That explains how youve ended up like this.

Seems like you’re the only one complaining tbh. Im just consoling a destitute child on their total lack of ability, its the right thing to do.

‘You’re still replying’ doesnt work when you are also replying. You have to get better at this this is pathetic. You shame your troll ancestors.

You’re flailing.

You’re at level 1 of trolling, you’re just doing the first thing that comes into your head, and because your head isnt at all special, its all just tired, obvious and toothless.

Get better, nobody will bite at the level you’re operating at, you just look thick x

Now you’re confessing to not know how timezones work, please stop outting your own idiocy its hard to watch.

Three main counterpoint to this.

Why would it fade, even if they never changed somehow their capabilities would be frozen, not degrade.

The open source community also works wonders, people who care about stuff like this will collectively spend millions of hours working on it.

Finally, those older but still highly capable models have become explosively more efficient in the past several years, I saw a figure that models from 2 years back are now 280x more efficient (cheaper to run) than they were when released, there’s no reason a company couldn’t field one of these, work on it slower and more conservatively, and profit from it.

Why do you feel it would be entirely different in any of those scenarios, what did you have in mind there? Some specific use cases it would lose perhaps?

Its no different from any other tool really, you don’t pick it up and immediately master it, you learn what it is and isn’t good at and ideas come over time as you go about your life and you wonder if problems that might previously not have been worth even trying to solve could be worth throwing at this new tool.

I used it to get a overview of the most popular tracks in a specific genre in a specific city 20 years ago by pulling set list data from various places on the internet the other day. Incredible results.

Trivial but very useful to me, as someone who spends a lot of time looking for new music.

You’re confusing AI with OpenAI.

They, anthropic, others, are constantly pushing and over-extending, but theyve already long since by passed models that are useful for various tasks. Certainly not everything, but if the big players died tomorrow you could run a local model on a gaming GPU that would still do decent amounts of work if you were the kind of person who had a use for it.

Not everyone is, and thats ok.

I find chatgpt very useful for work, but id be cool with them failing and having to downgrade. Models already did what I needed well enough a year ago, maybe a bit more.

One in eight people globally use an AI app, not just something that happens to include an ai feature like Google search, on a regular basis.

There are definitely still going to be pockets totally not touching it, and that will probably continue for a long time, but its very much soaking into global society.

https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2026-global-overview-report

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Use_of_artificial_intelligence_by_individuals

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/topics/ai-economy-institute/reports/global-ai-diffusion-report/

None of that means you should be using it, just pointing out that your immediate social group may not be an accurate reflection of reality.

Like as a counter anecdote - my gran has used it - and i feel like when old people get to a tech its approaching ubiquity, Facebook being the primary example I have in mind.

You must admit, a lot of people think the bubble bursting will be the end of the technology. I see that sentiment a lot on here.

Did you just learn what baiting is today 😂 lurk a bit longer and learn how its done, terrible execution, makes you seem braindead.

Imagine a child called you a big stupid head.

How would you feel?

Now you understand how toothless this moronic drivel is.

Learn what words mean, you’re just shaming yourself publicly.

Absolutely embarrassing level of discourse.

Go find a headline to get mad at sheep.

I think a core part of it is going to be assigning the right queries to the right models.

Dont send recipe or ‘Google this for me’ queries to the latest most power hungry model, for example. Older models are already hundreds of times less computationally expensive than they were two or three years ago so the problem is already half solved in some sense.

I find this perspective quite difficult to reconcile with my own experience. I’ve saved countless hours using AI, solved problems I wouldn’t previously have known how to approach, and used it to venture into areas well outside my existing skill set, often learning a great deal in the process. So when you insist it’s useless, destroys critical thinking and erodes skills, I can’t help but feel you’re demonstrating a lack of imagination about how it can actually be used, along with a bit of doomerism.

If you’re blindly accepting everything it tells you and outsourcing all your thinking to it, I can see how that might be detrimental. But that’s one way of using it. You can just as easily use it to explore unfamiliar subjects, interact with complicated concepts, challenge your assumptions and develop skills you didn’t previously have. These are largely questions of education and critical thinking, and teaching people how to evaluate information and use tools responsibly is invaluable whether LLMs exist or not. We could honestly use a bit of motivation to push this harder don’t you think?

Again, the environmental costs and concerns about cognitive dependency are valid, but neither establishes that the technology has no utility. Likewise, the enormous financial losses of some AI companies raise serious questions about their business models, but you’re making the common mistake of confusing that with whether the technology itself is economically viable. The cost of running models at comparable levels of capability has fallen enormously in a handful of years, and there’s no reason to expect that to suddenly cease.

Your argument here conflates three different questions: whether AI is useful, whether the current industry is financially sustainable, and whether its widespread adoption is benefiting society. These are related, but fundamentally different questions with potentially very different answers, and you seem more interested in dismissing all three outright than examining them individually.

And once again, several of your criticisms concern corporate behaviour and economic incentives, which is precisely what my original comment was about. Others are legitimate questions about the technology’s limitations and how people use it. But you’re lumping all of these together as though they demonstrate that AI is fundamentally useless, when they don’t. A technology can have serious limitations, be deployed irresponsibly and still offer enormous practical value.

How so, what sort of change do you imagine?