4 ms·

Right. This compute still being powered by an illegal amount of gas turbines in a residential neighborhood? Claude is eating so much compute, the threat of tha

by jprd 5mo ago

Right. This compute still being powered by an illegal amount of gas turbines in a residential neighborhood? Claude is eating so much compute, the threat of that power being tuned down by lawsuit (rightfully) is worth the risk to Anthropic in the short-term. Instead of declaring "bubble", I'm just going to say that's so crazy.

gpm 5mo ago
Or SpaceX is absorbing the risk should that power be turned off... still morally shitty but not obviously economically so.
ACCount37 5mo ago
Colossus 1 is in an industrial area, next door to a grid scale natural gas power plant. One that's fully operational.
- dbalatero 5mo ago
  Then why do they keep getting sued, then going one state over and running the same playbook that got them sued in the previous state? https://naacp.org/articles/naacp-sues-xai-illegal-pollution-data-center-power-plant https://naacp.org/articles/naacp-sues-xai-illegal-pollution-...
  - ACCount37 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - dbalatero 5mo ago
      Yes and both are getting sued? I wouldn't necessarily classify the NAACP as environmental activists, but they are concerned with the wellbeing of the people they represent.
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
    - rafram 5mo ago
      > "Environmental activists" are scum of the earth, as a rule > Tactics like this are a part of why US is a lousy place to build infrastructure in. I suspect your definition of a lousy place to build infrastructure in might overlap with my definition of a relatively good place to live.
      - inglor_cz 5mo ago
        "I suspect your definition of a lousy place to build infrastructure in might overlap with my definition of a relatively good place to live." Which is quite close to the standard NIMBY attitude: "I want good grid, cheap electricity and other infrastructure, but not in my backyard. Either someone else's, or somewhere where no one lives at all." Can't you see the fundamental problem with that attitude? We mostly live in densely populated regions. We do need roads, rail and power plants to sustain our way of living, you too.
        rafram 4mo ago
        Of course we need infrastructure. It’s annoying when a project that seems like a net good is held up due to environmental concerns, but this planet is very beautiful and I’d like to be able to continue to enjoy it.
        inglor_cz 4mo ago
        In practice, everything is tradeoff. Your house, and mine, and everyone else's here stands in some place which was once a beautiful natural spot. But few people would support tearing their own homes down in order to restore that beauty. A technical civilization of 8 billion people cannot exist without doing at least some damage to the environment, but most of the time, outright bans on further development are demanded instead of some reasonable mitigation. Maybe you really deeply care about the environment. Most of the NIMBYs I met don't. When it comes to infrastructure, housing etc., the environmental concerns are quite often just a legal tool, and the real motivation of the people who wield them is more along the "I have mine, I don't care about yours, just sod off".

by jprd 5mo ago

gpm 5mo ago

Or SpaceX is absorbing the risk should that power be turned off... still morally shitty but not obviously economically so.

ACCount37 5mo ago

Colossus 1 is in an industrial area, next door to a grid scale natural gas power plant. One that's fully operational.

dbalatero 5mo ago
Then why do they keep getting sued, then going one state over and running the same playbook that got them sued in the previous state? https://naacp.org/articles/naacp-sues-xai-illegal-pollution-data-center-power-plant https://naacp.org/articles/naacp-sues-xai-illegal-pollution-...
- ACCount37 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - dbalatero 5mo ago
    Yes and both are getting sued? I wouldn't necessarily classify the NAACP as environmental activists, but they are concerned with the wellbeing of the people they represent.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - rafram 5mo ago
    > "Environmental activists" are scum of the earth, as a rule > Tactics like this are a part of why US is a lousy place to build infrastructure in. I suspect your definition of a lousy place to build infrastructure in might overlap with my definition of a relatively good place to live.
    - inglor_cz 5mo ago
      "I suspect your definition of a lousy place to build infrastructure in might overlap with my definition of a relatively good place to live." Which is quite close to the standard NIMBY attitude: "I want good grid, cheap electricity and other infrastructure, but not in my backyard. Either someone else's, or somewhere where no one lives at all." Can't you see the fundamental problem with that attitude? We mostly live in densely populated regions. We do need roads, rail and power plants to sustain our way of living, you too.
      - rafram 4mo ago
        Of course we need infrastructure. It’s annoying when a project that seems like a net good is held up due to environmental concerns, but this planet is very beautiful and I’d like to be able to continue to enjoy it.
        inglor_cz 4mo ago
        In practice, everything is tradeoff. Your house, and mine, and everyone else's here stands in some place which was once a beautiful natural spot. But few people would support tearing their own homes down in order to restore that beauty. A technical civilization of 8 billion people cannot exist without doing at least some damage to the environment, but most of the time, outright bans on further development are demanded instead of some reasonable mitigation. Maybe you really deeply care about the environment. Most of the NIMBYs I met don't. When it comes to infrastructure, housing etc., the environmental concerns are quite often just a legal tool, and the real motivation of the people who wield them is more along the "I have mine, I don't care about yours, just sod off".