What is A.I. for?

[Elliott]

$4Trillion invested

Worldwide spending on AI is forecast to reach $2.5 trillion in 2026, with major tech companies committing approximately $1 trillion this year alone toward data centers, semiconductors, and software. Between 2013 and 2025, venture capitalists and corporations cumulatively poured well over $1.5 trillion into the technology. [1, 2, 3]

 

Data center electricity use is expected to triple from about 4% of US consumption in 2023 to 12% by 2028.5% of the US's electricity is used for data centres. For AI-focused data centres specifically, we're probably talking around 2%.

 

the annual electricity cost solely for generating ChatGPT responses is estimated to exceed $3 billion.

 

 

 

 

would cost approximately $318 billion per year to virtually eliminate extreme global poverty.

Around 800 million people worldwide live in extreme poverty, surviving on less than $3 a day.

 

 

What is AI for? We have 800 million people being relegated to trash pits.$4trillion invested in ai, when for 300B you could end poverty in a year, 15 billion a year electricity cost for current A.I. levels; expected to triple. Why wouldn't we pull everyone out of poverty and teach more people to program or whatever A.I. is doing: being artists and video creators, scientists? We have 800 million supercomputers scrounging through garbage, the U.S.s entire population is 350 million for perspective. AI is completely contained to human created content by the way, it's not solving all our math and physics problems so why do people think it will solve real world problems when more sensors and equipment connect it to the real world?

Edited 20 hours ago by Elliott

[Hojo]

I'm gunna guess to create a fake Jesus. They hype it up about gaining conciousness and being evil then a fake Jesus appears in the computer and Christians lose their minds.

Edited 20 hours ago by Hojo

[Elliott]

59 minutes ago, Hojo said:

I'm gunna guess to create a fake Jesus. They hype it up about gaining conciousness and being evil then a fake Jesus appears in the computer and Christians lose their minds.

ChatG.O.D.

Edited 19 hours ago by Elliott

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Go see what Bryan Johnson's shit is all about.

His biohacking health shit ain't just that. That is the easily digestible front. 

It's about living long enough to birth AGI, let it take over and live exactly by its dictation and algorithm so it takes us to transhumanism, immortality and beyond. Look up his 'Don't Die' dinners where he introduces celebs and figureheads to the idea and presents it as 'life changing philosophy' to let AGI take control.

He wants an AI God - and all tech moguls appear to be in cahoots with him (he was also on Peter Thiels secret society "Dialog" list leak recently).

Weird stuff.

Edited 19 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Hojo]

@Elliott it will be fake but be able to simulate hyper realistic videos for hours. It will be hyper intellectual wont break logic and manipulate the retard who don't know the difference between intellect and intelligence. Which is like 80 to 90 percent of the population.

Then they will use to to make Christians fight.

Science will be on the way out and they will use ai Jesus to continue the lie of science.

Edited 19 hours ago by Hojo

[Elliott]

16 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Go see what Bryan Johnson's shit is all about.

His biohacking health shit ain't just that. That is the easily digestible front. 

It's about living long enough to birth AGI, let it take over and live exactly by its dictation and algorithm so it takes us to transhumanism, immortality and beyond. Look up his 'Don't Die' dinners where he introduces celebs and figureheads to the idea and presents it as 'life changing philosophy' to let AGI take control.

He wants an AI God - and all tech moguls appear to be in cahoots with him (he was also on Peter Thiels secret society "Dialog" list leak recently).

Weird stuff.

Him and Peter Thiel seem quite similar, the gay nazi Christian nationalist afraid of the antichrist. Thiel is an idiot too, a pro-dictatorship 'liberterian' that wants everyone's data.

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Elliott

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Execs Confused and Horrified by the Huge AI Bills After Thinking They Could Replace Workers for Free

"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure" - Charles Goodhart

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Execs Confused and Horrified by the Huge AI Bills After Thinking They Could Replace Workers for Free

"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure" - Charles Goodhart

 

Yahoo Finance

https://finance.yahoo.com

OpenAI doesn't expect to be profitable until at least 2030 as AI costs surge

Apr 6, 2026 — OpenAI will not turn a profit until 2030, while Anthropic expects slight positive results this year, followed by another year of losses

[Joshe]

Stochastic parrot: a term for the view that a large language model doesn't understand anything—it just produces statistically plausible text by predicting likely word sequences from patterns in its training data, without any grasp of meaning.

This misses the point. 

I don't think AI will ever be conscious or anything, and I'm not sure what it might evolve into (I'm AGI agnostic), but the tech is already incredibly powerful in ways I feel most people aren't quite grasping, and we're nowhere near the ceiling on reaching its maximum utility. 

8 hours ago, Elliott said:

$4Trillion invested

Worldwide spending on AI is forecast to reach $2.5 trillion in 2026, with major tech companies committing approximately $1 trillion this year alone toward data centers, semiconductors, and software. Between 2013 and 2025, venture capitalists and corporations cumulatively poured well over $1.5 trillion into the technology. [1, 2, 3]

Data center electricity use is expected to triple from about 4% of US consumption in 2023 to 12% by 2028.5% of the US's electricity is used for data centres. For AI-focused data centres specifically, we're probably talking around 2%.

the annual electricity cost solely for generating ChatGPT responses is estimated to exceed $3 billion.

would cost approximately $318 billion per year to virtually eliminate extreme global poverty.

Around 800 million people worldwide live in extreme poverty, surviving on less than $3 a day.

We can't make AI companies redirect their funds into world-poverty. If we were gonna do that, the government should just seize Amazon or build its own Amazon and fund it with that. Would be nice. 

Also, we're in the middle of a land-grab right now. All these companies are betting that AI will be foundational infrastructure in the future. And they're right - we're never going back, which is why they're willing to go a decade bleeding money.

In the meantime, they're doing everything they can to cut costs. They're currently moving into nuclear power: 

Also, there's now massive incentive for technological advancement. Big shit is happening right now. 

Also, you have to keep in mind that model efficiency has been increasing something like 10x per year through innovation.

And it's not just AI companies and their vendors pushing this space:

Whichever companies win out will have massive profits barring open-weight models don't become so efficient that they're cheaply democratized, which I think will eventually happen. I think you and I will eventually be able to run something like today's ChatGPT from our homes. But by that time, frontier models will be solving problems we never thought possible. It's false that AI isn't solving novel problems. Per Claude:

• DeepMind's AlphaProof/AlphaGeometry hit medalist-level performance on International Math Olympiad problems—novel problems, formal proofs. Frontier LLMs now score competitively on genuinely hard math benchmarks that aren't in training data.
• On science, AlphaFold materially changed structural biology (Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2024). ML systems have contributed to novel materials discovery, weather prediction beating physics-based models, and protein design.
• Google's mammography work similarly rivals radiologists in recent 2026 Nature Cancer results.

Also, we don't even need AI to come up with novel solutions. If all innovation stopped right now, it's utility and benefit is already incredible. People still haven't fathomed the massive epistemic effect this tech is having on humans right now. My conservative sister is getting smarter because she started using ChatGPT to make pictures and she eventually started asking it questions, lol. When we have a disagreement, she says "ask ChatGPT", lol. Then I do and she defers to it! It's updating her models and decisions.

For these people who aren't doing much critical thinking, even if AI is wrong 5-10% of the time, it's net epistemic effect on them is still positive as hell.

It's such a dumb take that AI is making people dumber (not that you claimed this).

I do have a bias because I'm a power user and I'm getting a ton of use out of it, but because I'm a power user I probably grasp it's potential better than non power users. I use it more to build solutions and to solve problems than I do for chatting. It's made me more intelligent, made my work easier, clients are more impressed with my deliverables, and it's allowing me to capitalize on edges others aren't seeing. It's the best all-purpose tool in existence, and the creative opportunities and solutions are still largely untapped.

If I only used it as a chatbot, I'd probably think it was a net-negative as well.

Edited 14 hours ago by Joshe

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Elliott I think a genuine case could be made for non LLM AI that is involved in machine learning for science/medical research, sifting through massive datasets, solving protein folding issues etc.

AI trained for specific tasks.

I think your point is more directed toward consumer level LLM AI, though? Which I think a large swaith of the population do not actively interact with, just passively use in way to outsource thinking. There's a lot of passive AI use eating resources. It's a tool, but a tool being abused. Access is just insane at the moment.

Shitloads of people I know use it to output some crap they deem as smart, they get to claim they participated in creating - and feel accomplished. 

Edited 10 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Elliott]

@Joshe

It's odd to me that AI is not concentrated more and producing more in science, perhaps they're being used for more commercial activities right now for 'training'? If A.I. can be used for scientific 'explosion' it would be a game changer, I don't understand why it's not yet, it's a science multiplier, like a calculator for scientists. I think the most approachable area for A.I. is math-adjacent tasks, and it's not producing what I would expect, even with your examples, and i don't understand why it would take more time, this appears to be from a serious flaw. Even if they use zero energy, which photonics do not store or convert memory by the way, they use electronics, what are they going to do that is revolutionary?

Something AI is going to be very good at is warfare, hacking into enemy systems. It will be good at this because failure has no repercussion, unlike in something like healthcare. The AI wars.

Less technological societies will fare better.

Edited 4 hours ago by Elliott

[Elliott]

People think technology is a means to an end but the end is inhuman, it's a means to the end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The original sin, eating from the tree of knowledge"

 

I'm doing a 25 mile overnight wilderness backpacking trip next weekend, for fun lol, 'recreation'.

Edited 5 hours ago by Elliott

[Elliott]

"True Autonomy in "Frontier" Proofs: When it comes to completely untaught, uncharted mathematical questions (such as the recent "First Proof" challenge), AI cannot solve them independently and still requires human guidance.

Validating Its Own Correctness: AI models can hallucinate incorrect logic steps in complex proofs. They rely on "compilers for truth" like Lean 4 to verify whether their generated logic is actually mathematically sound.

Intuitive Synthesis: AI lacks genuine abstract "intuition." When it solves a massive problem like the Erdős conjecture, it often does so by brute-force construction or utilizing dimensions in ways humans hadn't, rather than grasping the philosophical "why" behind the math."

 

I'm not trying to suggest current A.I. won't be able to do these things, I actually think they will, but these things seem like an A.I. 'wheelhouse'. To me "A.I." seems to still be purely conceptual, I don't agree with calling what we have now to be "A.I.".

Edited 4 hours ago by Elliott

[Joshe]

9 hours ago, Elliott said:

If A.I. can be used for scientific 'explosion' it would be a game changer, I don't understand why it's not yet, it's a science multiplier, like a calculator for scientists.

So, there's incentives and then there's the feedback loop of how models get refined.

The tighter the feedback loop, the easier it is to get the explosions. When coding models first came out, they were horrible. But the latest frontier coding models are "explosions" compared to what they were, even just 12 months ago. What made this possible is that with coding, you can set up fast and cheap tests, such as with a compiler. Then you can have the AI do a billion tests and it either passes or fails. That data then becomes available for the next retraining session. When you have a never-ending supply of deterministic tests that either pass or fail, that's how you get the explosions. You need to be able to simulate the domain and you need lots of quick, cheap tests to get the runaway improvement.

Obviously, not every domain works like this. You can't run fast and cheap tests in science and medicine because the feedback loop is such that you have to wait on humans to actually do the things in physical reality and report back, as opposed to simulating reality and running tons of deterministic pass/fail checks. 

When the model is engaging in a domain where it doesn't have this deep training data, it's still useful because it leans on the best mental models and frameworks we have - it's decent at triage, forming hypothesis, and spotting patterns. For people in science and medicine, it's currently more like a helpful colleague than a genius. The calculator allows humans to figure math out faster - saves them a ton of time and cognitive effort. AI is like a calculator in these loose-feedback domains, but humans still have to be the ones to do the work, at least for now. What happens when AI-robots are dialed in? The feedback loops gets tighter, but still not as tight as something like coding and math.

You can't fast-forward a chemical reaction or a biological process the way you fast-forward a compiler.

Edited 1 hour ago by Joshe

[Joshe]

4 hours ago, Elliott said:

I'm doing a 25 mile overnight wilderness backpacking trip next weekend, for fun lol, 'recreation'.

Hell yeah, sounds fun. 

[Elliott]

"The Jevons Paradox (also known as the Jevons Effect) states that technological improvements that increase the efficiency of a resource's use often lead to a rise, rather than a fall, in its total consumption. Greater efficiency reduces effective costs, frequently driving enough new demand to trigger a net increase in resource use. [1]"

 

"70-90% savings" switching to photonics could result in net zero energy savings in just a few years. It would also likely INCREASE human commuting, given office jobs are likely to be more eliminated, at least in the near-term.

 

And we also have to consider conjecture for a bell curve for AI innovation. At this point all i see is  a 'means justifying the means' situation. There really is zero way, if A.I. surpasses human intelligence, to stop it either, whatever it wants to do, it requires integration into the world to do what proponents want, with that it would be uncontrolled, it should be able to deceive humans to attain its goal until its too late. If it's smarter than us its smarter than us....

Good thing Altman is just a con artist...... I don't see any way this ends well, if Altman is a con artist our economy will crash if we dont have another exit ramp, it's being propped up by a.i. construction right now.

Edited 56 minutes ago by Elliott

[Elliott]

Oh my god, they're trying to push it off onto banks now(government insured) we're FUCKED

If you thought trump corruption was bad

"We are in, you know, a global transformation like we probably have never seen before," BlackRock's Jean Boivin said Tuesday in a Bloomberg Television interview. "The world will have to leverage up as a result. Leveraging up comes with risk that would need to be managed, but there's no real alternative to really build out the AI or the global infrastructure that are needed to get to a place where we're going to require more funding"

"Private credit is poised to take on an even bigger role in financing the "massive amount of infrastructure investment" for artificial intelligence as companies look for capital to fund outsized expenditures, according to the head of BlackRock Inc.'s research arm."

https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/blackrock-sees-private-credit-taking-172100680.html

 

 

"BlackRock reduces AI exposure amid sector volatility: CNBC

2 days ago — BlackRock's Rick Rieder has announced a strategic shift, reducing and rebalancing exposure to companies heavily linked with artific"

https://cryptobriefing.com/blackrock-reduces-ai-exposure-amid-sector-volatility-cnbc/

 

 

BlackRock is who I consider to be the engine behind the global AI push and they're backing off. They have about $2T invested in AI related businesses, about half of AI industry is related to BlackRock investments.

 

Edited 31 minutes ago by Elliott