> let them get used to using it every day for 18 months, then pressure the EU to let it continue or you rip the feature away and anger users (who you then point to the EU as the problem)
And you’re saying that consumers would be incorrect in thinking that?
What ecosystem is it endangering? Is using the land a problem? Utah has 10.5 million acres of farmland that I would think has some impact on the ecosystem too, should we stop doing that too?
For comparison, that 40,000 acres receives somewhere on the order of 40 GW solar radiation (averaging over night/day and winter/summer). Box Elder County overall receives something like 3600 GW average. There's a lot of power in that sunshine.
I remember I was surprised to learn that the heat released from burning all these fossil fuels doesn't really impact the temperature of the environment all that much. There's always just so much more radiative energy always going in and out all the time, the heat from the combustion is insignificant (or more specifically: it's quickly balanced out by increased radiative output).
To generate that 9 GW of electrical energy typically about twice that amount in heat will be generated at the thermal engines converting the fuel chemical energy to electicity. Has anyone studied this 18 GW heat load at the site of electricity generation?
The total head load for consuming electrical energy of 9 GW is thus approximately 3*9 GW = 27 GW = 9 GW at the GPU's and 18 GW at the electricity generation plant.
They mention a gas plant would have to be about 7.5 x 40 acres = 300 acres.
By your calculation its 1 GW / 1000 acres of natural incident solar power; so natural solar power on 300 acres would be just 0.3 GW on the would-be plant.
Instead its dissipating 18 GW (!) 60 x higher!
That is ignoring the 9 GW on the GPU site.
Poor nations desiring developed nation level energy per capita consumption combined with developed nation exploding energy consumption for the AI rat race means humanity ogles consuming energy at such power levels that mere prompt heating approaches similar power levels and densities as GHG radiation forcing did!
In other words, even if we succeeded in phasing out all fossil fuel energy use and replace them with renewables, and even if we somehow extracted all the excess CO2 back out, we will relatively quickly replace the cause of global warming from GHG emissions to prompt heating for generating and dissipating our electric energy use.
2 Exceptions: wind energy and hopefully someday exploiting the temperature difference at ground level versus the tropopause.
Humans have made aerostats (balloons with a tether), humans have made aerostats that went much higher than the tropopause, although only in acceptable weather.
At the tropopause the temperature is about 60 degrees C colder (up to about 100 degrees C in tropical regions).
Imagine a heat loop or huge inflatable levitating heat pipe (using phase transition). The new access at ground level to a cold bath in addition to the environmental warm bath can be used to drive a thermal engine and generate electricity (day and night, winter and summer). It behaves more like baseload energy, and it helps cool the planet: the heat transported from surface level if released at the tropopause level is above about ~70% of the CO2 of the atmosphere, so there it can more quickly escape to the CMB's low temperature bath.
We could be cooling the planet while generating useful electrical energy. The first prototypes should avoid any inhabited areas by a distance at least equal to the structure height (so it doesn't cause damage to population residences). Most humans live "close" to a coast line, so place the first such structures about 15 km into the sea. Another advantage is that the sea water has a high heat capacity, is pumpable, and can provide as a very stable reference thermal hot side bath. I.e. the system shouldn't stall because it has depleted local heat in the environment, you can always pump lukewarm seawater into the device, which can also be used to freeze seawater (desalinating it, see freeze desalination). The frozen seawater can be brought to conventional energy plants to lower their cold side bath temperatures, increasing the efficiency of solar but also gas / fuel / nuclear energy plants.
None of this contradicts the laws of thermodynamics, its an engineering problem: how do we build an inflatable structure that withstands the wind shear forces, dampens structure resonances, identifying the ideal carrier for transporting the heat (a pure substance? a mixture?, ...), a group of specialists should comb through the space of options to get a rough first overview of which directions would be more or less promising than alternatives.
Why do you presume yourself to be part of the "we" in question? This seems like it's a case of other people using their own resources to do things that don't involve you; what's your stake in it?
And given your correct acknowledgement that it's "just you" expressing subjective normative opinions about things you're not involved in, what valid basis do you have for assessing what anyone who is involved actually needs?
The article doesn’t say when this collection happens but there is some part of the game the involves photographing specific landmarks which does involve pressing a shutter. I’m guessing that’s where this comes from but would be great to hear from a better source.
Not trying to be contrarian here, but I don’t get the problem. What’s wrong with Palantir producing weapons or military intelligence? How is it different from making guns?
Is the problem what those things are used for, or is it the way Palantir does it?
Palantir aggregates immorally collected advertisement data and de-anonymizes it before selling it to the government. It's abuse of a dual-use data source that has no opt-out for any free citizen; maybe that concerns you, maybe it doesn't.
Their biggest issue is their leadership, though. If Alex Karp had two ounces of morality to rub together then it might be an easier pill to swallow, but instead he harps about how proud they are to kill people with AdSense data. It feels like the immorality is the point.
It's because there's a built-in conflict of interest in most for-profit companies.
It's in a business' best interest to maximize demand for its products. Which is mostly fine for society, country, and the world by large if you're selling paper cups.
However, if you want to sell more weapons you are interested in lobbying for events that increase the consumption of weapons, in other words: wars.
I think fewer people would care about Palantir (and several other notable companies) if their CEOs/founders weren't using the company as a platform for their own ambitions and ideologies.
For me, it's the blur between who makes decisions. I don't love our government making decisions about who lives or dies, but I much prefer decisions to be made by a/ a human b/ one who isn't beholden to shareholders.
Allowing private-sector warfare manufacturers creates a profit motive for warfare, surveillance etc. It’s in palantir’s (or Raytheon, or Northrop, or BAH…), and their stockholders’, economic interest to promote and extend conflict. Many people think this is bad (including me).
Look at what's happening in Lebanon, Palestine, Iran. Everyone involved in helping with those mass murders is evil.
Edit: I see I'm being downvoted. What is your argument in favor of this? How big of a degenerate, amoral, psychopath do you have to be to justify this?
"Israel has carried out at least 37 attacks against healthcare workers and facilities in Lebanon, including against the state civil defence and Lebanese Red Cross, since the current hostilities began, Lebanese authorities said.
The war in Lebanon started on 2 March after Hezbollah launched a volley of rockets at Israel, triggering a swift Israeli bombing campaign across the country. Fighting has since escalated, with Hezbollah continuing its rocket fire and Israeli troops invading south Lebanon.
At least 826 people have been killed in Lebanon by Israeli strikes, according to the ministry of health, and about 1 million have been displaced."
Well, as the saying goes, guns don't kill people, people kill people. But now, thanks to companies like Palantir, we can essentially make guns that actually do kill people.
You don't see a problem with a private company selling software as a service to spy on and bomb people? Guys I know we've known about this shit at least since Snowden, but this is not normal and not how things should be run. When you accept these problems as normal modus operandi, you are actually enabling it.
He shows no remorse for any innocent lives lost during these operations. He emphasizes that the "minimum" number of innocent deaths has been achieved, and for him, that's job done.
You can accept that warfare is sometimes necessary and that innocent lives are sometimes lost. But necessity shouldn't be enough to wipe away any semblance of remorse if you have a functioning moral conscience.
Karp may be right on the merits right now, but he's clearly a broken human being. This is not someone I want involved in our country's warfare apparatus for the long term, because eventually his sociopathy will kill people who didn't need to die.
From the post he's referring to text input as well:
> Maybe it makes more sense that all inputs to LLMs should only ever be images. Even if you happen to have pure text input, maybe you'd prefer to render it and then feed that in:
Italicized emphasis mine.
So he's suggesting that/wondering if the vision model should be the only input to the LLM and have that read the text. So there would be a rasterization step on the text input to generate the image.
Thus, you don't need to draw a picture but generate a raster of the text to feed it to the vision model.
And you’re saying that consumers would be incorrect in thinking that?
reply