Statements of the form “X can never happen” tend to be weak, so that’s a bit of a strawman. But, in spirit, of course they can both be true. There are matters of degree and the intervention of countermeasures.
Energy infrastructure for powering a data centre isn't the same as energy infrastructure for powering a city. One is a simple point-to-point link (power plant to data centre), the other is a grid.
It's like comparing a railway line from a mine to a smelter with a city's road network.
Most data centres connect to the grid, they don’t connect to a single power station, except in scenarios where there’s a uniquely low cost power supply nearby, like a small Hydro Plant.
Utility scale power stations have outputs measured in GWs. Data centres are measured in MWs, although people are trying to build GW scale data centres at the moment. But even then a data centre will want a proper grid connection, otherwise they have a massive single point of failure in the form of the directly connected power station.
It’s also very unlikely that purpose built power station is capable of offering cheaper than grid power anyway, except in the very special situations like Hydro. So if you’re gonna build a datacentre, you will want a proper grid connection capable of providing all you needs. Even if you’re running on dirty gas turbines in car park initially while waiting the grid hardening happen. In the long term, that grid connection is always going to be the cheapest, most reliable source of power, ignoring it completely would be foolish.
The premise I was responding to was that the energy infrastructure would be built during the rise of the AI "bubble" and subsequently be repurposed after the collapse. If we're just connecting data centres to the grid then I don't see how that is providing any new infrastructure whatsoever. On the other hand, if we're building lots of new power plants to power the data centres (and connecting them to the grid) but then at some point the data centres are shut down, we end up with a huge glut of unneeded power.
Furthermore, to elaborate on my point above: building new power plants in tandem with data centres that demand GWs of additional power does nothing to address the needs of the grid itself. The grid is not built to handle all that new power, and the consumer electricity demand is not there anyway.
You can only get grid connections if the grid thinks they can support your demand. That’s why grid connections take so long, they’re not just plugging in a massive cable, they’re reinforcing other parts of the grid to make sure your massive cable won’t cause a blackout if use all the power it can provide.
Building new power plants immediately isn’t really required to serve data centre, they’re huge amounts of spare capacity in most grids that only exists for extreme situations. The hard part is making sure any existing capacity can actually be delivered to the new data centre. New power plants will get built to rebuild spare capacity over time, or more likely, solar and wind will get built to reinforce that spare capacity over time.
Datacentres are useful grid loads because they all have backup power on site capable of powering the entire site as an island. Which means grid operators can ask them to disconnect quickly if they need to extra power for short periods of time to handle power spikes, or local grid faults. So it’s possible to connect quite a lot of extra data centre type load before generation capacity becomes a serious issue.
> Which means grid operators can ask them to disconnect quickly
Really, now? Yeah, they can ask, but do data center operators just go "oh grid needs our power! Let's switch to backup!"
That seems unlikely. Why would a data center (or any large consumer of electrical power) be forced into a backup/contingency plan, when no crisis exists at all? Other than drilling/practice runs, I cannot see them readily agreeing to this. Is it actually a routine occurrence?
> Really, now? Yeah, they can ask, but do data center operators just go "oh grid needs our power! Let's switch to backup!"
Of course they do. The grid is going to load shed regardless, better to disconnect in an orderly fashion (especially as the grid will pay you to do so) than wait for your local substation to disconnect you.
> That seems unlikely. Why would a data center (or any large consumer of electrical power) be forced into a backup/contingency plan, when no crisis exists at all?
Because they get paid to do it. This is pretty basic demand side management that’s been the bread and butter of grid management for decades now. Grids will offer discounts to large loads that allow themselves to be disconnected at short notice, and will then pay those loads for the periods they’re disconnected. There’s usually multiple tiers of discount and payment depending on how fast a load can disconnect, and how often the grid expects to call upon that facility.
I think by “something popular” gp meant an industry that people are excited to be in — which dovetails with your implication about accepting low pay for a way in the industry
It’s not remotely hypothetical you’d have to be living under a rock to believe that. And the fusion with a one-party state government that doesn’t tolerate huge swathes of thoughtspace being freely discussed is completely streamlined, not mediated by any guardrails or accountability.
This “no harm to me” meme about a foreign totalitarian government (with plenty of incentive to run influence ops on foreigners) hoovering your data is just so mind-bogglingly naive.
As a non-American, everything you wrote other than "one party" applies to the current US regime.
Relatively speaking, DeepSeek is less untrustworthy than Grok.
When I try ChatGPT on current events from the White House it interprets them as strange hypotheticals rather than news, which is probably more a problem with DC than with GPT, but whatever.
> And the fusion with a one-party state government that doesn’t tolerate huge swathes of thoughtspace being freely discussed
That would be a great argument if the American models weren’t so heavily censored.
The Chinese model might dodge a question if I ask it about 1-2 specific Chinese cultural issues but then it also doesn’t moralize me at every turn because I asked it to use a piece of security software.
Both can be totalitarian. Both are shit imho. I just don't buy the argument that China is worse because of it.
But if we start nitpicking the US also executes people all over the world without trial and has secret prisons worldwide where they put people (guess what) without trial.
> This “no harm to me” meme about a foreign totalitarian government (with plenty of incentive to run influence ops on foreigners) hoovering your data is just so mind-bogglingly naive.
This is why I’ve been urging everyone I know to move away from American based services and providers. It’s slow but honest work.
>This “no harm to me” meme about a foreign totalitarian government (with plenty of incentive to run influence ops on foreigners) hoovering your data is just so mind-bogglingly naive.
China hasn't done anything with Taiwan other than saber-rattling. Hong Kong, Xinjiang, etc. are all part of China.
The US is (mostly) protective of its citizens but (depending on administration) varyingly hostile to outsiders (immigrants, starting wars, etc.).
China is suppressive towards its own citizens, but has been largely peaceful with other countries and immigrants/visitors. (Granted, China has way fewer immigrants than the US, so this is not comparable).
> And the fusion with a one-party state government that doesn’t tolerate huge swathes of thoughtspace being freely discussed
Ah, so the one party state with two factions in the US repressing anyone who opposes Israel has guardrails. And also, 'accountability'...
> totalitarian
The US is literally, actually committing genocides, kidnapping presidents, pushing wars on every front while repressing dissent at home. If the US is not totalitarian, nobody is. And in a discussion about US models vs Chinese models whent it comes to totalitarianism, excuse my French but f*ck the US. The 'democracy' propaganda would have worked a decade ago. Not today.
The oppression of people in China like Uyghurs and Hong Kong, the complete lack of free speech, the saber-rattling at neighbours, and the lack of respect for intellectual property are indeed all well documented.
But for folks on the opposite side of the world, the threats are more like "they're selling us electric cars and solar panels too cheaply" and the hypothetical "these super cheap CCTV cameras could be used for remote spying"
Come back when Americans are routinely jailed for rubbing their elites the wrong way (in some countries, criticisms aren't the only way to rub the leaders the wrong way)
This. America is an oligarchy. The political system is a joke facade with a revolving door to corporations. Your vote is meaningless, you dont actually have a choice. Media brainwashes the swaths.... but thought crime still isnt a reality here.
This would have worked a few years back, but now you can be detained at the US border for posting what you just did so it's a terrible example to pick.
By the way, even with the current administration, there's no question about which is the more authoritarian with their own citizens between China and the US. But if you aren't American, then the US government is much more of a threat than the Chinese.
China cannot make the life of an official in Europe miserable for investigating their atrocities towards the Uighurs, meanwhile CPI judges are now forcedly unbanked and cannot work with American software because they investigated in US's ally's atrocities in Gaza.
Pretty sure you guys have a strong laws about free-speech, and criticizing elites is part of that. Though there are some groups that do not really want the 1st amendment to be a thing.
Foreigners are literally being denied entry into the country due to opposing viewpoints expressed on social media. People have to disable FaceID on their phones prior to going through customs in case an agent decides to investigate whether their political views are in opposition to the current administration.
> And you're saying Americans aren't banned from criticising their elites?
Half the country would be locked up right now if they weren’t allowed to criticize Trump. Have you even paid attention to how much he’s shitted on, on a daily basis?
Literal Trump Derangement Syndrome. America has a comically horrendous president but remains fundamentally a liberal democracy… and Canada concludes “literal Nazis are a better choice”. It’s uncanny how much can be taken for granted :(
(American talking, who’s had multiple Canadian friends make this mind boggling overcorrection)
The president of the United States has much to his dismay, been consistently legally constrained. The chancellor of Germany had significantly more power, both de facto and de jure.
"Man with itchy butt wake up with stinky finger."
As long as we're quoting maxims to claim authority for middling takes.
But to gp's point, that is a principle. Perhaps not yours, but they outlined their stance and stuck to it despite threats and consequences.
Contrast Sam's OpenAI announcement which was very carefully worded to appear to uphold the same principles, but is currently being rightfully disassembled as retaining various potential outs that would allow violating the signaled principles.
Honest and staunch about clearly stated principles is better than wiggly and dishonest about weasel-worded impressions of a principle.
And all of that is orthogonal to whether you (or anyone) agrees with a given principle or given revealed behavior.
How do they feel about and respond when asked about the Taiwan question?
Do they either clam up or act like it's a mortal insult to suggest that an independent democratic nation should not live in fear of impending violent conquest?
Because that's the kind of reaction that makes the reports of "happy life, all's good" a little harder to digest.
Not saying that's a unanimous opinion / response, of course. But it certainly seems to be the default.
About 50% of Chinese people I meet very much agree with the government that it's part of China and always has been. The other 50% know that it's clearly independent and are tired of the whole act by the Chinese government. But the people I've talked to about this are people with the means to travel, and many of them have been to Taiwan. So it may not be representative of the typical person on the street. I've been to China several times and I don't want to ask it there, but that's less out of fear of the government but more than I don't want to bother locals with politics and present myself as an enlightened foreigner, since nobody likes that shit. Just like nobody would like a Chinese guy going to Alabama and telling the people they need to embrace socialism if they ever want to escape poverty.
> The other 50% know that it's clearly independent and are tired of the whole act by the Chinese government.
Chinese living in a foreign country, or Chinese willing to discuss such issues with you in China is a highly biased sample set. That is high school math you suppose to learn at the age of 17.
The majority of US support for Taiwan and it's current situation is owed entirely to supporting a military junta from the mainland that massacred the local Taiwainese who objected to it and suppressed civil society.
Are you saying you would've been neutral on an invasion of Taiwan before 1985 or so, since it wasn't a democracy?
I applaud your consistency and I await your categorical opposition to the United States and Israel.
Or is there some nuance and you feel, in order to remain consistent, that it would be permissible in principle for China to bomb Taiwan and execute their head of state so long as they kept it to an air war and relied on their local agents on the ground?
Maybe worth asking for anyway? They might just be setting metrics based on the most popular ways of measuring but if they care about the spirit of the offer it would make sense for them to be flexible with the letter of the requirements.
