You are either vastly overestimating the Language part of an LLM or simplifying human physiology back to the Greek’s Four Humours theory.

If you want to boil down human reasoning to pattern recognition, the sheer amount of stimuli and associations built off of that input absolutely dwarfs anything an LLM will ever be able to handle. It’s like comparing PhD reasoning to a dog’s reasoning.

While a dog can learn some interesting tricks and the smartest dogs can solve simple novel problems, there are hard limits. They simply lack a strong metacognition and the ability to make simple logical inferences (eg: why they fail at the shell game).

Now we make that chasm even larger by cutting the stimuli to a fixed token limit. An LLM can do some clever tricks within that limit, but it’s designed to do exactly those tricks and nothing more. To get anything resembling human ability you would have to design something to match human complexity, and we don’t have the tech to make a synthetic human.

Why do we need more of it? Since 1950 the USA has increased electricity usage 14x with slightly over 2x the population. With full electrification, our electricity demands are expected to increase by 90% in 2050 with only a ~10% population bump.

Surely we’ve gone beyond necessary consumption and hit diminishing quality-of-life returns. And all of this is considering just production, excluding the complications of replacing infrastructure, transportation fleets and upgrading the grid.

Those projections also don’t include gen-AI datacenters, which will consume ~12% of total usage by 2028. Electric trains are between 2-10x more efficient per passenger/kWh than BEVs. With a focus on more efficient transportation you could turn off those datacenters, skip the complex and expensive BEV infrastructure and come out with a much lower 2050 consumption.

This sounds like quite a rube goldberg machine to avoid simply supplying a predictable baseline with nuclear. If you try to out-surplus increasingly common climate catastrophes, you’re going to be in for a rude awakening.

Any surplus or pricing plan will be gamed by power hungry datacenters or other wasteful capitalist scam-de-jour. Like you said, demand is elastic so any spare watt will eventually be sucked up as the price curve is optimized. The combined fluctuations on supply+demand is not what you want for a stable grid.

I predict a scenario where storage has to shore up that instability; much more storage than people think. The potential for a zero-supply floor (independent of demand growth) with massive surplus peaks requires building out an equally massive buffer. What will that ecological damage will look like? Will our current projections and efficiencies hold true at that scale?

The cheap energy -> increased demand -> increased storage -> more surplus cycle will cement our reliance on cheap energy, which requires more stability which means more storage, etc…

Let me clarify here that renewables are important for planning a responsible energy future, but only chasing cheap energy isn’t the solution. It’s not possible for us to out-produce the over-consumption that got us here.

Can anyone explain to me why cost matters in these conversations? Do shrinking populations need more energy for any sane reason? If so, do we need it scaled that rapidly?

Do we need electricity to be dirt cheap for any reason other than we want to consume it? Is it just capitalism-brain insisting that tricking the market with profit incentives will save our planet?

Anyways, the second amendment exists to combat tyranny.

Just want to step in here and say that no interpretation of the second would cover a civilian killing a foreign diplomat, no matter how tyrannical 😂

I have examined the goat entrails quarterly metrics and determined that gods markets require more human sacrifices corporate tax breaks

I believe it was this article. The main point was on how incredibly shitty coal is but I thought it was interesting how the others stacked up as well

IMO, any energy plan needs to have reduced consumption as priorities 1-10 and past that nuclear isn’t always worse than renewables.

Let’s bring back lead, CFCs and all the stuff we have band because we were careful

Lead, CFCs, Asbestos and the like have all been banned for consumer use, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. Being unhealthy doesn’t mean they have no application and can’t be carefully used.

still has no real waste solution

At scale, neither do renewables. Solar panels are a sandwich of dozens of trace elements, heavy metals, plastic and everything else. Nitpicking nuclear here is silly because the amount of waste generated is the least by an order of magnitude. Keep waste generation under control and its management basically an afterthought.

Nucular is extremely expensive

These conversations always get bogged down in $/kW, which is not what we should be worried about. Nuclear has a lower lifetime carbon footprint than renewables, which is worth the extra spend in our current climate crisis. It’s an important tool for sustainable energy usage; you can’t use renewables as a drop in replacement for everything.

Unnamed “people” of some unnamed US spook organization

People employed by a state actor to screen hardware (or closely related to screening) probably aren’t supposed to leak stuff like this. Nobody wants a potential adversary knowing what you do/do not know.

rogue devices in an undisclosed number of Chinese solar inverters and batteries of not named brands

Again, there’s no benefit to telling, especially when this could tie back to a leaker. How could they disclose a number? They deconstruct a sample selection, not every single one that’s installed. What would the public even do with brand information? Throw away the commercial utility grade inverters tied into their nonexistent home grid?

which alerts Europe

Spain just had a very public massive grid failure. Even if they don’t trust the US diplomatically, they could very easily take this info and verify it on their own devices.

Every smart car on the road has a backdoor killswitch and GPS tracking, “just in case” it needs to be used against a private individual. You think a state actor supplying 30-40% of the global market (allies and adversaries alike) wouldn’t do the same thing?

There’s a bit of a fundamental difference between capitalism and other systems. Mercantilism sucked but conquistadors got some level of pushback for their atrocities. The Spanish crown fought a war over illegal slavery and the vast majority of conquistadors died poor or in obscurity.

Modern capitalism has no such brakes. Naked avarice is the mathematically correct play, exponentially growing the power of an individual at the expense of literally everyone else.

It’s not likely that other economic systems could result in this level of global instability and ecological collapse. A king used to have some incentive to keep his society functioning; his personal power was tied to the power his kingdom could project, not his personal wealth. Our modern overlords have no problem destroying their country or environment, their wealth is fungible and can be taken wherever they want.

Here’s a wrench for you: the Luddites were 100% right

Marxist puppet? Are these “Marxists” in the room with you right now?

Who would be pulling the strings for Marxists in 2025? Uh… Cuba? Lemmy.ml? Lenin reanimated as a Communist Lich King?

The F sure as fuck doesn’t stand for Army you fucking ape.

The FBI has the authority to enforce laws passed through regular congressional channels by elected officials.

Here the commander in chief is declaring a policy and enforcing it directly with his own power. It’s the textbook definition.

Eminent Domain

Military unilaterally policing civil affairs on US soil

HoW iS tHaT mArTiAL Law??

Just look up the definition you fucking stooge.

Fair point, but it’s still a flat tax regardless of miles driven. Current Gen EVs see a lot less miles/yr in the US vs combustion.

So at 1.25x weight with that mileage you should only expect 1.5x the cost.

I’m not a huge fan of any cars but this is a pretty regressive scheme.

Then tax by weight and not engine type. Freight trucks already don’t pay their fair share in infrastructure costs.

Edit: EVs are about 18-24% heavier than their Ice equivalent. Still doesn’t add up to the proposed costs.

Sensationalist? They give a very clear picture of what the orders were and are a perfect microcosm of how Stalin’s regime operated with the violently anti-communist Nazi’s.

As your well sourced historical analysis states there are plausible reasons for the policy but that doesn’t change the fact that the USSR acted to project and protect its own influence. You don’t get to dress it up as “saviors of Europe” or “benevolent protectors of Poland”.

As for using Russia and USSR interchangeably, I pretty obviously use it due to the outsized russkie influence on USSR policy. Stalin’s USSR was a hard turn from Lenin’s korenisatsiya, Russian culture and interests were first among “equals” (from Stalin’s own mouth). Waxing lyrical about the USSR’s diversity is pretty irrelevant in most conversations and especially here.

And next time you stalk someone’s post history, use a little more critical thinking. In no way do I support just about any of the USA’s foreign policy. I call a spade a spade and operate in real life, outside the confines of internet ideology. You have no clue what I do or don’t do in real life, regardless of what I post. Keep fighting that strawman, trooper, maybe it will go better for you than this thread.

Dang bro you had Russian imperial apologism ready to go that quick? Impressive.

I’m not going to engage with most of what you wrote because everything I’ve said is a fact, it’s not up for argument. The maps delineating eastern Europe exist, these conflicts happened. The Soviets oh-so-valiantly opposed nazi aggression except for when they didn’t.

Hey look, here’s a Soviet and Nazi officer shaking hands after the invasion of Poland:

Here’s a German soldier giving flowers to the crew of a Russian tank:

Somehow if you’re a fan of an imperial power (UK, US, USSR, RUS, CHN, etc…) your invasions are always the product of specific circumstance. It’s always actually a liberation, or counter terrorism or defending world order. Your puppet government is always an improvement. The other team are the true bloodthirsty enemies.

Let me cut through your mincing of the facts:

The Soviet Union invaded Poland 2 weeks after the Nazis, at a time…

It’s not a secret that western powers were opposed to the Soviets; it’s not a secret that they did it to protect their own interests. If they cared more about being a bulwark against fascism those pictures would be Russian troops fighting side by side with the Poles. They could have even pushed into the German lines at any point before Operation Barbarossa.

They did eventually win the eastern front, but they looked out for their own interests first. There are a lot of counterfactual histories where millions of lives are saved by decisive cooperation.