What was the point you were trying to make by linking the executive order? The actual law simply states that the "Secretary of the Interior shall provide for uniformity in geographic nomenclature and orthography throughout the Federal Government".
Just thinking out loud here but I wonder if there is a case to be made that by renaming Lake Ontario to something that nobody actually uses, the President has violated the law that requires "uniformity in geographic nomenclature and orthography". Not that anyone would have standing to actually get anywhere with that.
Also very silly prediction given this would dramatically lower the amount of models hosted on HuggingFace and move users elsewhere to platforms that do support quantized models (not what Nvidia wants).
Its possible no AI lab has any unique edge, and success is a combination of (a) having access to GPUs (b) having access to large amounts of data (c) know about the handful of techniques to build an LLM, of which nearly all are likely open source and documented in papers.
So the cycle of growth is (a) and (b), get more GPUs and get more data and you have a better model.
Yea, this reads as LLMs are a pretty obvious technology to develop(for the highly intelligent researchers who are there). Also there's probably a lot of actual divergence in model capabilities and skills that concealed by the fairly narrow set of tests we run them against nowadays. Like wasn't Grok 4.20 super targeted at non-coding tasks.
Why is everyone ignoring the pattern that has existed since training models became a thing? At first it sucks. Then it's better than humans. Just by using it you generate training data that makes it better over time.
GPUs might explain the remarkably concurrent timing. Data access doesn't really explain it unless all labs simultaneously got access to some treasure trove of data.
The US doesn't need more oil, but if Iran were to cut off oil supply from the Persian Gulf it would make oil prices significantly more expensive by reducing total available worldwide supply.
The US economy, for the better or worse of it, depends on cheap oil to supply energy for commerce and transportation, and if that becomes more expensive, people stop traveling, trucks stop shipping, energy stops being produced and millions of US jobs are at risk.
The whole "Death to America" and USA is the "Great Satan" make them a much more morally easy target given they have practically no ability to fight back.
I don’t know, the US is the world‘s largest oil producer, and there’s a lot of people in America who are very happy about the high oil prices. Doesn’t exactly trickle down to the average American though. But there are many other industries is that matter a whole lot more to the US economy, for example, if Taiwan stop selling chips to the US, we would be really screwed.
>The same process is pricing regular people out of the energy they need to power their air conditioner during those heat waves and the technology it enables is pushing them out of the labor market and into poverty.
I don't see evidence this is true, and the critical mass of data centers is making electricity cheaper. Economies of scale -> more energy = bigger electric plants = cheaper energy.
> Economies of scale -> more energy = bigger electric plants = cheaper energy.
Problem is; power plants are not something that can be spun up with a kubectl invocation.
Power plants need to be built. This process takes YEARS, and in some cases over a decade. And that's just the plants themselves. The grid also has to be built out to be able to handle the new load.
And while this potentially +10year process is ongoing, the current supply is gobbled up, and prices for consumers skyrocket.
Yes, eventuelly, market forces may solve the issue. By then however, it will already be too late for many areas, with residents being priced out of a basic utility.
Or worse, the markets may not solve the issue at all.
Because; all this building out of electrical gear and power plants, requires very specific resources and talent. Whta if the markets decide that these resources are much better allocated (at least from the PoV of company shareholders), in building power generation capacity exclusively for datacenters, and the consumer market is simply ignored?
> Economies of scale -> more energy = bigger electric plants = cheaper energy.
This isn't true. Certainly not globally. Because electricity in 2026 is converting finite and scares resources. Plants need fuel to burn, water to cool, material to build, land to sit on, etc. Yes, even Nuclear plants¹ need increasingly more scarce resources like "coolant".
What has been bringing electricity prices down is renewables: insane amounts of solar and wind being installed hourly. But even with that, we are still lagging, globally: energy prices are -on average- rising, projects halted or stalled because of lack of electrical capacity and ever increasing amounts of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. Not less. Not cheaper. Not more supply.
It is true globally as well, but there are certainty anecdotes where confounding factors makes it not true like what you've highlighted with specific France Nuclear reactors.
We should be cognizant of the environmental impact of producing more energy, but it still remains true that making more energy means cheaper energy across the resources we have today.
reply