The AI Investment Boom

Some stuff like the buildings and power supplies will probably remain good. But year, probably new chips in a short while.

Power plants and power infrastructure are probably an example of a positive consequence that comes from this.

We have been terrified to whisper the words "nuclear power" for decades now, but the AI boom is likely to put enough demand on the power grid that it forces us to face this reality and make appropriate buildouts.

Even if the AI Boom crashes, these power plants will have positive impacts on the country for decades, likely centuries to come. Keeping bountiful power available and likely low-cost.

It is so bizarre that reducing pollution was not a sufficient driver to build more nuclear power, but training AI models is.

People are absolutely irrational creatures.

We'd be much better off using less power rather than finding different sources of power though. I also personally prefer nuclear energy to coal, but is our best chance really to come up with a new technology so power hungry that we have to build nuclear just for the new demand?

Capitalism*

That's sadly how we advance into new tech, historically speaking. Humanity only put a man on the moon as a case of showboating to political rivals. And look how we iterated on that 60 years later (I'm aware the moon landing was more or less stuck together with bubble gum and hopes/prayers, but still.). the uses for rocket propulsion to serve the public only came later.

Someone really important or really rich needs to build that demand so we get something for the wrong reasons but for potential good intent. FWIW, I'm not really optimistic that the bubble lasts long enough to even get these plants off the planning stage, though.

> Man likes to think of himself as a rational animal. However, it is more true that man is a rationalizing animal, that he attempts to appear reasonable to himself and to others. Albert Camus even said that man is a creature who spends his entire life in an attempt to convince himself that he is not absurd.

-Elliot Aronson, "The Rationalizing Animal"

Or to be less philisophical: the people with the money and power to say what's important are rarely the ones thinking long term, nor in an audience of other powerful, rich people thinking long term. US congress' median age is over 60: most aren't thinking about how to keep the Earth alive in 20-30 years. They won't be around to suffer the consequences.

> FWIW, I'm not really optimistic that the bubble lasts long enough to even get these plants off the planning stage, though.

I don't really expect the current LLM bubble to last long enough to stand up new nuclear plants, though I don't expect that to actually stop the new energy projects unless the bubble popping has a massive economic impact.

Power plants are slow moving projects. Even if LLMs as they are don't live up to expectations they have seemed to open the door for the idea that amazing things are coming and we need to make sure the energy supply is ready for it.

It is all in the "what do I get in return right now?" concept. Reduce pollution is a promise to give back a safer Earth, save climate, make life less painful in future etc. which are all far away and the current generation in power will probably retire long before anything significant extinction level occurs.

AI on the other hand promises immeidate gain(lot of expensive job automation = cost cutting) as well as future return on investment. Like someone said, IT has returns realized quickly in few years, so that is more lucrative than /reducing pollution/.

Also, reducing pollution requires money spent(cost) and everyone is afraid of the cost if it does not promise at least x2-5 minimum return gain immediately(or in few years).

>I don't expect that to actually stop the new energy projects unless the bubble popping has a massive economic impact.

I can see it going either way. It really depends on how the economy moves this decade, and I feel we're very much at an inflection point as of now. I won't even pretend to guess how 2025-6 will go at this point.

Pollution (especially the greenhouse gas type) is like the proverbial frog slowly boiling in the pot of water. Eventually we feel the effects, often in huge ways but disintermediated by time.

Whereas exploiting a new technology like AI for potential profit is like a massive hit of sugar/caffeine/drug in that we feel/act on ASAP.

> It is so bizarre that reducing pollution was not a sufficient driver to build more nuclear power, but training AI models is.

It makes more sense when you understand "training AI models" as "greedily pumping up a bubble."