Artificial intelligence doesn’t run on @optimism or buzzwords. It runs on electricity. This seems to be a growing concern as the technology advances, with outlets from Teen Vogue and Wired to the Washington Post and Harvard Business Review publishing articles about AI’s alarming energy and water consumption. The previous AI doomerism now seems to be focused less on AI’s application and more on its use of resources. However, there should be a case for optimism on both energy policy and technology policy regarding this issue.Rather than immediately rushing to fit these growing energy demands into our existing policy frameworks, AI can provide an opportunity to rethink our static models and mental frameworks around energy. Such rethinking provides opportunities for dynamic growth in both technological innovation and energy. If the United States wants to lead the world in AI, policymakers must abandon the illusion that a centrally planned grid can power a decentralized technological revolution. Energy abundance and technological progress thrive when they are built on the same foundation: an open-ended market process with less government intervention.
pull down to refresh
related posts
135 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 3h
Do stackers too wonder if we'll ever get back to times where there are less laws, not just different ones?
reply
100 sats \ 3 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 3h
I think so, it depends on who you ask. I know there are some around here in favor of more deregulation and freedom.
reply
33 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 3h
I woke up this morning thinking "shit isn't going to change". That doesn't happen often. Maybe I just have a bad hair day, lol
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 3h
Time to change your nym to @pessimism
reply
30 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 2h
Based off of one morning? Nah. Maybe after a decade.
I still believe that humanity is awesome. Just I don't believe that we're very good at defending ourselves against getting exploited as a group.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 1s
China recognises the strategic nature of power generation.
They have used a simple policy of building more electricity generation capacity to trigger the building of new factories and productivity by private enterprise.
This is a classic example of how a government can drive economic growth and improve a nations competitive advantage.
Cheap electricity does incentivise the building of factories and downstream productivity.
Private ownership of power generation does not have the same overarching incentives- it is much more likely to limit investment in new power generation within its coverage area in order to charge the maximum possible price and thus profit it can extract from its catchment area.
A government has the mandate and incentive to build strategic assets like power generation that can trigger downstream investment in multiple productive enterprises. Private enterprise does not have such a broad mandate and incentive as it is only focused upon maximisation of its profits.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 5m
Here in New Zealand previous right wing governments sold off the state owned electricity generators - they are now all partly owned by private shareholders.
When power generators can form a cartel as these now do they have limited incentive to build more power generation capacity as limiting supply means they can charge much higher prices for what is available.
This is precisely what has happened- introducing private ownership and the profit motive has resulted in rising power prices and a deficit of new power generation.
Libertarians seem totally blind to the reality that private for profit operators of strategic assets can and do use their market dominance to extract maximum profits...in the case of power generators this places an additional cost burden on all downstream businesses and consumers reducing the competitive advantage of the entire nation.
Why are libertarian 'free market rules' ideologs blind to this reality???
reply