Most active commenters
  • asdf000333(5)
  • throw10920(4)

←back to thread

Google commits to buying power generated by nuclear-energy startup Kairos Power

(www.wsj.com)
589 points atomic128 | 12 comments | 14 Oct 24 19:06 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
encoderer ◴[14 Oct 24 19:21 UTC] No.41840917[source]▶
Finally, 24 years in, it’s really starting to FEEL like a new century.
replies(6): >>41841021 #>>41841033 #>>41841105 #>>41841661 #>>41842611 #>>41843373 #
1. Dig1t ◴[14 Oct 24 20:34 UTC] No.41841661[source]▶
Sort of feels like we wasted a long time having our best and brightest figuring out how to optimize advertising algorithms. I think we're finally starting to recover from that phase.
replies(3): >>41841965 #>>41850256 #>>41850665 #
2. bpodgursky ◴[14 Oct 24 21:02 UTC] No.41841965[source]▶
These nuclear reactors are literally being built to optimize advertising algorithms.
replies(1): >>41842006 #
3. Dig1t ◴[14 Oct 24 21:06 UTC] No.41842006[source]▶
Sort of, they are being built to power AI models which do all kinds of things, but yes definitely advertising is part of it. Ads are mature now though, these mega corps have fine-tuned their products and squeezed every last advertising penny out of their audiences that they can, there isn't as much new stuff to build in that area now.
replies(1): >>41850842 #
4. throw10920 ◴[15 Oct 24 16:28 UTC] No.41850256[source]▶
Citation needed for the claim that any particular non-trivial fraction of engineering talent has been wasted on ad algorithms, or that those are the "best and brightest", or that those people would have been doing other useful work if the ads didn't exist.

Without evidence this is just a repetition of an old, unproven meme for internet points.

replies(1): >>41850661 #
5. asdf000333 ◴[15 Oct 24 17:07 UTC] No.41850661[source]▶
You can look at what percentage of each big tech company's revenue is ads or how much they've spent on their advertising platforms.
replies(1): >>41850684 #
6. asdf000333 ◴[15 Oct 24 17:07 UTC] No.41850665[source]▶
I'm also glad to see that the hot startups aren't social media anymore.
7. throw10920 ◴[15 Oct 24 17:08 UTC] No.41850684{3}[source]▶
That not related to the claim about engineering talent.
replies(1): >>41850744 #
8. asdf000333 ◴[15 Oct 24 17:15 UTC] No.41850744{4}[source]▶
The talent follows the money. Consider what was hottest during the 2000s-2010s tech boom, startups offering free services with the value proposition of eventual data collection for ads.

Maybe also look at value instead of revenue, in terms of public market caps or private acquisitions. At least Facebook's $1.48T market cap is derived from ads.

replies(1): >>41850773 #
9. throw10920 ◴[15 Oct 24 17:18 UTC] No.41850773{5}[source]▶
That doesn't answer the question. I asked for, and I quote, "any particular non-trivial fraction of engineering talent has been wasted on ad algorithms, or that those are the "best and brightest", or that those people would have been doing other useful work if the ads didn't exist".

Your inability to provide evidence is suggestive that the evidence does not exist.

replies(1): >>41850941 #
10. asdf000333 ◴[15 Oct 24 17:24 UTC] No.41850842{3}[source]▶
I'm still curious what all these companies exactly want genAI for, but I doubt it's about ads. And the other kinds of AI aren't driving the new power usage.
11. asdf000333 ◴[15 Oct 24 17:34 UTC] No.41850941{6}[source]▶
I'm not sure what else you want beyond my answer, maybe proof that these big tech companies have indeed been hiring bright engineers, but maybe you or someone else can find it on the Internet. I'm gonna go ahead and agree with Dig1t on this.
replies(1): >>41852822 #
12. throw10920 ◴[15 Oct 24 20:34 UTC] No.41852822{7}[source]▶
> I'm not sure what else you want beyond my answer

It's not hard to see that your response does literally nothing to answer my question.

> I'm gonna go ahead and agree with Dig1t on this.

It's crystal clear that you don't have any evidence for the claim, so your opinion is meaningless.