4 ms·
> "I want twice as many, right now, to use, abuse, and discard without guilt or strings attached". The only thing that meets this definition of scaling is our
by harry8 5y ago
> "I want twice as many, right now, to use, abuse, and discard without guilt or strings attached".
The only thing that meets this definition of scaling is our fantasies. Absolutely everything else uses resources implying an opportunity cost and has non-zero latency in making any desired change.
- salawat 5y agoHow many IBM mainframes get paid and are given the capability to allocate their own capital? How many of the computers we use to program transaction processors and other things are seperate from the entities that operate them? How many human actors were displaced, and salaries saved by cutting of jobs we've automated away? We look at vehicle automation, machine learning, etc... Precisely because they open up new avenues through which money can be saved by not employing as many expensive bags of carbon and water in favor of throwing a handful of graphics cards, sensors, hard drives, and compute resources at problems that like it or not, we required fleets of humans for previously. If it weren't in some fashion more economically viable at some level, in some way, I'm fairly sure we wouldn't still be pursuing it. That's the thing I've noticed. It's the grim version of the more rosey "we're empowering fewer people to do more with less."