3 ms·

>So do we really need to e.g. double or triple the (electrical/thermal) power density at scale? Will we ever be able to double or triple our (general purpose)

>So do we really need to e.g. double or triple the (electrical/thermal) power density at scale? Will we ever be able to double or triple our (general purpose) compute per cpu any other way? Moore's law is essentially over. Node improvements aren't really happening outside of TSMC, which doesn't have enough manufacturing ability to supply everyone, and even then those node improvements are getting more and more incremental. And regarding power consumption, I think we really need to be consuming more energy across most sectors of human activity. The most likely explanation for the "great stagnation" is that our energy consumption has basically flatlined since the 70s. It appears that on a civilizational scale, reaching greater levels of development and expression simply requires more Joules. If you disagree, I highly recommend the book Where is my Flying Car?

adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
since the 70s, lights have gotten about 6x more energy efficient, boats and planes are about 2x, and computers are incomparibly more efficient. also, it's pretty clear that before we significantly increase energy consumption, we need to be able to do so without wrecking the environment. massive flooding in major cities and huge refuge crises from desertification are not conducive to progress.
- voldacar 4y ago
  Carbon capture is extremely energy intensive and will never work without significantly increasing our energy production. The only way out of the climate crisis is to massively increase, not decrease, the amount of energy available to us
  - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    Given that solar and wind are by far the cheapest type of carbon neutral power to deploy and they are already being deployed really quickly, how do you propose doing that?
    - voldacar 4y ago
      Ideally, fossil fuels should be used in the near term to bootstrap fission and fusion. Needless to say, this would only be possible with complete destruction of the NRC and other entrenched anti-nuclear forces, so it won't happen of course. Note that fission alone is sufficient to supply our current energy needs for any forseeable amount of time.[0] However, getting back on the Henry Adams curve will eventually require moving beyond fission and creating a Dyson swarm. This Dyson swarm can then be used to bootstrap the Caplan engine[1] which slowly disassembles the sun (interestingly, this actually prolongs the sun's lifespan) and uses its matter for a more efficient form of fusion, compared to the wasteful main sequence nuclear process. This future probably won't happen, but it should. [0] https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-28-nuclear-energy-is-longterm-sustainable.html https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-28-nuclear-energy-is-... [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094576519312457 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00945...
      - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
        So your short term plan is to use fossil fuel to run carbon capture? That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a while.
        voldacar 4y ago
        No, read my comment again.
- temac 4y ago
  I agree with you, and: > computers are incomparibly more efficient Yet to be clear the total world energy consumption for computers has increased, which is sad because we could certainly cope with 1/2 of the current total speed capacity but way more efficiency. Trying to get very high TDP chips and/or density is likely going in the other direction (but I could be wrong for the datacenter).

adgjlsfhk1 4y ago

since the 70s, lights have gotten about 6x more energy efficient, boats and planes are about 2x, and computers are incomparibly more efficient. also, it's pretty clear that before we significantly increase energy consumption, we need to be able to do so without wrecking the environment. massive flooding in major cities and huge refuge crises from desertification are not conducive to progress.

voldacar 4y ago
Carbon capture is extremely energy intensive and will never work without significantly increasing our energy production. The only way out of the climate crisis is to massively increase, not decrease, the amount of energy available to us
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  Given that solar and wind are by far the cheapest type of carbon neutral power to deploy and they are already being deployed really quickly, how do you propose doing that?
  - voldacar 4y ago
    Ideally, fossil fuels should be used in the near term to bootstrap fission and fusion. Needless to say, this would only be possible with complete destruction of the NRC and other entrenched anti-nuclear forces, so it won't happen of course. Note that fission alone is sufficient to supply our current energy needs for any forseeable amount of time.[0] However, getting back on the Henry Adams curve will eventually require moving beyond fission and creating a Dyson swarm. This Dyson swarm can then be used to bootstrap the Caplan engine[1] which slowly disassembles the sun (interestingly, this actually prolongs the sun's lifespan) and uses its matter for a more efficient form of fusion, compared to the wasteful main sequence nuclear process. This future probably won't happen, but it should. [0] https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-28-nuclear-energy-is-longterm-sustainable.html https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-28-nuclear-energy-is-... [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094576519312457 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00945...
    - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
      So your short term plan is to use fossil fuel to run carbon capture? That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a while.
      - voldacar 4y ago
        No, read my comment again.
temac 4y ago
I agree with you, and: > computers are incomparibly more efficient Yet to be clear the total world energy consumption for computers has increased, which is sad because we could certainly cope with 1/2 of the current total speed capacity but way more efficiency. Trying to get very high TDP chips and/or density is likely going in the other direction (but I could be wrong for the datacenter).