←back to thread

The AI Investment Boom

(www.apricitas.io)
271 points m-hodges | 7 comments | 20 Oct 24 14:56 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
m101 ◴[20 Oct 24 21:56 UTC] No.41898811[source]▶
There is a comment on this thread about this being like the railroads, but this is nothing like the railroads except insofar as it costs a lot of money.

The railroads have lasted decades and will remain relevant for many more decades. They slowly wear out, and they are the most efficient form of land transport.

These hardware investments will all be written off in 6 years time and won't be worth running given the power costs and relative output. They will be junked.

There's also the extra risk that for some reason future AI systems just don't run efficiently on current gen hardware.

replies(5): >>41899046 #>>41900169 #>>41900225 #>>41903674 #>>41905422 #
tim333 ◴[20 Oct 24 22:32 UTC] No.41899046[source]▶
Some stuff like the buildings and power supplies will probably remain good. But year, probably new chips in a short while.
replies(1): >>41899310 #
jacurtis ◴[20 Oct 24 23:18 UTC] No.41899310[source]▶
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.

replies(2): >>41899434 #>>41903541 #
1. WillyWonkaJr ◴[20 Oct 24 23:36 UTC] No.41899434[source]▶
It is so bizarre that reducing pollution was not a sufficient driver to build more nuclear power, but training AI models is.
replies(4): >>41902188 #>>41904922 #>>41905710 #>>41907077 #
2. xvilka ◴[21 Oct 24 09:19 UTC] No.41902188[source]▶
People are absolutely irrational creatures.
replies(2): >>41903832 #>>41904013 #
3. tehjoker ◴[21 Oct 24 13:14 UTC] No.41903832[source]▶
Capitalism*
4. johnnyanmac ◴[21 Oct 24 13:35 UTC] No.41904013[source]▶
> 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.

5. n_ary ◴[21 Oct 24 15:00 UTC] No.41904922[source]▶
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).

6. danans ◴[21 Oct 24 16:19 UTC] No.41905710[source]▶
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.

7. tivert ◴[21 Oct 24 18:42 UTC] No.41907077[source]▶
> 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."