←back to thread

AI capex is so big that it's affecting economic statistics

(paulkedrosky.com)
337 points throw0101c | 5 comments | 18 Jul 25 19:59 UTC | HN request time: 1.241s | source
Show context
oytis ◴[18 Jul 25 20:21 UTC] No.44609364[source]▶
I just hope when (if) the hype is over, we can repurpose the capacities for something useful (e.g. drug discovery etc.)
replies(16): >>44609452 #>>44609461 #>>44609463 #>>44609471 #>>44609489 #>>44609580 #>>44609632 #>>44609635 #>>44609712 #>>44609785 #>>44609958 #>>44609979 #>>44610227 #>>44610522 #>>44610554 #>>44610755 #
barbazoo ◴[18 Jul 25 20:45 UTC] No.44609635[source]▶
On the other hand, drug discovery sounds like it's a candidate for really benefitting from AI. To fuel AI model development, there maybe has to be all the garbage that comes with AI.
replies(1): >>44609674 #
lm28469 ◴[18 Jul 25 20:49 UTC] No.44609674[source]▶
What drugs? The leading causes of death are routine induced, 80% of cancers are caused by your environment, &c.

We have much better things to do with these billions

replies(3): >>44609752 #>>44609813 #>>44610345 #
1. schmidtleonard ◴[18 Jul 25 21:03 UTC] No.44609813[source]▶
Bullshit. Heart disease and cancer (and a long tail of medical problems) cook up with age and kill ~everyone inside ~100 years. If you think that environment and exercise can fix this, show me the person who is 200 years old.

We would have to 100x medical research spending before it was clearly overdone.

replies(2): >>44609899 #>>44611917 #
2. lm28469 ◴[18 Jul 25 21:14 UTC] No.44609899[source]▶
You can 1000x the research if you want, a 50kg overweight person who doesn't exercise, drink alcohol and lives next to a highway is statistically fucked no matter what. You'd need straight up magic to undo the damages

You're not going to fix lifestyle diseases with drugs, and lifestyle diseases are the leading cause of death

replies(1): >>44611905 #
3. schmidtleonard ◴[19 Jul 25 02:03 UTC] No.44611905[source]▶
Show me the 200 year old person.
4. bdangubic ◴[19 Jul 25 02:05 UTC] No.44611917[source]▶
“inside 100 years” is a veeeeery large span… there is a huge difference if inside 100 is 45 or 95 :)
replies(1): >>44612411 #
5. schmidtleonard ◴[19 Jul 25 03:45 UTC] No.44612411[source]▶
Obviously healthy habits prolong your life. Nobody argued otherwise. My contention is specifically with the idea that they matter to the exclusion of science and pharma. Healthy habits clearly hit a wall: if they didn't, we would have health and fitness gurus living to 200 and beyond by virtue of having a routine that could actually defeat cancer and heart disease. The absence of these 200 year old gurus indicates that no, 80% of cancer (and heart disease, everyone always forgets heart disease) cannot be avoided with diet and exercise. Hence, work on getting through the wall is valuable.