Nightwatch Admin

Too bad so sad

It’s been 6 hours, may I out of friendly nature inquire after the hopefully most entertaining intercourse with @Klear@quokk.au? I trust it was most fulfilling?

!theyknew@lemmy.world

Please see my other comment: whether nuclear power is good or bad is not my point, the monstrously power hungry genai shit is.

All nice and well but it is not my point here. My point is that I disagree that adding nuclear is good as it doesn’t remove fossils from the mix in the first place. LLM/genai is a problem no matter how much power you throw at it.

God no, it will not. Aside from the discussion whether nuclear is really a good way to generate electricity (and I think it’s not): The demand is so insanely huge that it’s actually stacked: green plus coal plus gas plus oil plus nuclear is currently getting “assigned” to genai.

“I’m in this picture and I don’t like it.”

There’s one upside though; Jeffrey Epstein can’t opt out anymore.

Now now… mediocre.

More like godawfully bad.

Yeah, that’s probably going to be a warning from the mods though

What an odd report: 51% think the relationship is bad, ok but that’s 6% less than a month ago; the headline smells iffy. Also I don’t see why people think it’s bad: do they hate Trump? Or do they actually like the idea of the cartels being bombed to smithereens no matter who does it? Or even (blech) love Trump? That research could have been so much better.

I am sorry for being late, but I would love to say that the no 0.3Wh vs yes nuclear plant would be just perfect.

Got the mail today, and it is written rather nicely at first glance, but close inspection reveals the utter contempt for the customers and artists - including the godawful “if you opt out we may terminate your account because you are not in line anymore”. What’s happening with all these previously decent enough companies?

Best erotic story ever on !DevsGoneWild@lemmynsfw.com <3

The classic definition of workstation is “immensely powerful, probably tweaked single user production computer”, which can of course be racked and remotely accessed, but we’re talking late 90s then.

Sorry, i meant the comments under the article on toms hardware. I see this on a every tech site: research says it’s impossible amount of power used, and everyone in the comments below will do half arsed calculations with other made up numbers, trying to disprove the researcher, and always only to defend and legitimise their use of ai.
FWIW I’m not saying that the research here is garbage; it’s a decent attempt estimating by at assuming what you don’t and cannot really know, as long as an OpenAI and their doesn’t publish the data. As far as I know only Mistral published anything at all.

Of course there are comments doubting the accuracy, which by itself is valid, but they are merely doing it to defend AI. IMHO, even at a fifth of the estimates, we’re talking humongous amounts of power, all for a so-so search engine, half arsed chatbots and dubious nsfw images mostly. And let’s not forget: it may be inaccurate and estimates are TOO LOW. Now wouldn’t that be fun?

“He’s just sending you his heart” lmao

More climate problems, much more

That’s odd, but truly sorry.