Because they are dumping/subsidizing it token processing to try and get companies to fire as many people as possible. So they'll be dependent upon the companies when they have to Jack the rates
The end state vector of capitalism has been like this for decades now. What can change this:
- large scale geopolitical demographic collapse of China and/or world trade requiring massive industrial production investment, which would be ... sort of ... like post-WWII
- China does not collapse and a new bipolar cold war ensues requiring the US economy and state to keep the "underclass" motivated and cooperative: it probably isn't a coincidence that the fall of the Berlin Wall has preceded this rich-poor divide.
The US basically refused to do a Marine expeditionary landing. Our infantry doesn't have anti-drone defenses. They probably haven't been trained or equipped with shotguns to attack flying drones, much less have flotillas of H-K drones to escort them and the necessary army of trained drone operators.
Yes, high altitude superiority exists, but that won't submit a country.
So one of my pet theories I haven't seen in general discourse is that AI came from the massive vector processing jump available commercially in GPUs when it left CPU bound processing behind. That's a factor of 100x-1000x of processing power.
AI is not-quite-there, and to get even another leap might take another 10-100x processing power.
Now... what? ASICs probably won't deliver even a 10x? There's only so much you get out of node shrinks.
"Substantial" doesn't even mean twice IMO. "Substantial" almost sounds like ... 15% better?
An Amazon phone with Amazon Video, playing Amazon Music, making phone calls throug the Amazon messenger, with an Amazon Browser that overlays ads to Amazon products, and has Amazon Voice Recognition ... blah blah blah
I imagine when you are a billionaire from one company, every time you hear the name of the company you hear your name, so you can't really think about what Joe Schmoe wants in a phone independently of your ego.
I guess this is what Steve Jobs was better at. SOME focus on the customer independent of his ego and Apple Apple Apple. I did say ... SOME.
Us military has had active demonstrations of the importance of advanced drone munitions FOR TEN YEARS NOW and completely dropped the ball.
It is clear that an organizational level the US military does not have infantry level short and medium-range drone capability like Ukraine does, and more importantly, like all of our enemies do.
It's not just a matter of the US military needing to do a bunch a weapons designs. Procurement politics can't close the drone capability gap.
Because the fundamental capability is cheap and flexible, whereas the entire Pentagon weapons procurement is big, expensive and inflexible
The US Marines are now functionally ineffective. The US cannot execute a marine invasion in the current military capabilities, not without taking publicly untenable losses
The US Navy still has deep water capability and can still exert strategic influence, but at a tactical level, which is in near shore/littoral arenas, they are now useless, and the political procurement process to make weapons to make them relevant again is the same problem. The infantry level one does, but it's even bigger and has even more organizational resistance
The world is deglobalizing, and while drones may not exert Blue water power projection, they now dominate littoral power projection.
Marine invasions may be impossible in drone combat without drone superiority, and right now, Joan superiority is not a thing that I think exists between two fully drone enabled armies
And note the US army is not a fully drone enabled army.
And even on that timeline, that spots another 6 years for perovskite solar cell development, wind farm build out, and sodium ion and other ultra cheap storage chemistries to develop.
The oppressive economics of alternative energy right now is compared to all the other forms of generation is that they simply have a lot more runway just on economies of scale but also in technological development to increase their economic advantage. And keep in mind that alternative energy has already won the price war even over combined cycle natural gas
I just don't think solid fuel rod smrs are the way to go. I think the past the price competitive nuclear involves molten salt reactors with their inherent safety, inherent scalability, breeding, an online reprocessing that uses almost all the fuel.
Granted China has about the only one that's ever gone into semi-production. That reminds me, it's been about a year since I heard it went online and I haven't read anything about it
What's depressing about this? Is it involves freeway driving.
Which should theoretically be the simplest thing to train AI for, and the thing you should be able to get the best change and construction reporting to a centralize system about.
And the thing I most want automated for my lifestyle.
I do not need a trip to Taco Bell fully automated. I know a whole bunch of venture Capital does but I don't.
I want is to be able to sleep while I get driven between Midwestern cities
Build a solar plant in the Sahara desert and ship the energy long range,
Nuclear's probably still more expensive than that.
I'm not saying we give up on nuclear entirely. It should be at the well-funded research and prototyping phase for another 10 years.
In my opinion, at least for consumer energy, I think perovskite solar cells and sodium ion batteries for home storage will enable a very large oversupply or overcapacity start evening out the intermittent fears.
...You guys have mountains everywhere, which means dirt cheap hydro energy storage for solar and wind?
I'm a lftr enthusiast, but everyone needs to keep in mind that fission is just fundamentally economically non-competitive compared to solar and wind.
And all those stories about fusion being right around the corner? Yeah, that won't be economically competitive either.
I personally am not in favor of closing down existing fission nuclear plants. By the construction of new fission plants is an economic boondoggle: big, long time, cost overruns, more expensive.
I had hopes for smrs to fundamentally change the economic game but they aren't. I just don't think that solid fuel rod nuclear can ever be economically competitive.
I think I'm back to my original lifter enthusiasm, where lifter is able to use 90% plus of the core nuclear fuel and breed more of it from ultra cheap thorium, and is safer and can be scaled by design....
I think nuclear industry should spend another 10 to 20 years engineering developing a fundamentally economically competitive nuclear plant that will also give time for the price improvement, curves of solar wind and storage to stabilize.
Because solar wind and storage still have a lot of runway for improvement between sodium ion batteries perovskites and just general improvements to wind rotors and general economies of scale
They are a distant third at best, at least in trading companies. If you look at Chinese and other likely national actors, they are probably further down.
The thing with dotComs is that they didn't have THIS level of unsustainable financing burn, and a tangible issue of token processing cost that has no magic wand coming with the current practical limits of Moore's law.