dhork

For the same reason why they let so much water evaporate. They could convert some of that heat back into electricity, just like they could run closed-loop cooking systems, but it would cost more money than it would save. There's no financial incentive to do so....

.... Until regulators start insisting! These datacenter folks have gobs of money, we shouldn't be shy about requiring them to not ruin the local environment.

It would be best to do it on a national level, otherwise these folks will just shift the development to someplace without the regulations.

Why are people acting surprised? This is exactly what DOGE intended to do.

How many AI datacenters will it take to boil the ocean?

It’s effective in terms of cranking out software. I’m talking about skilled senior engineers managing this directly. They know what they’re about. But at what cost?

Those senior engineers became skilled by starting out as entry-level engineers who didn't know all that stuff, but learned from the senior engineers before them (and by writing a lot of bugs that hopefully got caught by code reviews.) Now, companies are using AI as an excuse not to hire entry-level people.

15 years from now, we will find there are no mid-level people to promote, because they never got their entry-level job and are now waiting tables.

Total guess, but probably $100-150/mo or so to rent 1U (and redundant power), and probably an installation charge (and a charge every time they need to touch the hardware for any reason). There may be extra charges for the uplink.

Unless you have a need for that specific hardware to be there, it would probably be cheaper (and more maintainable) to go rent a virtual server somewhere.

I bet those politicians are getting some sweet ~~bribes~~ gratuitues

I won't even get contact lenses, I ain't letting them putting a chip in my brain.

Those datacenters are already built, though, and consume a fraction of the power of the new sloppified AI stuff. You can get space in one right now, if you want

86 96

The article only calls out the "Acting" and "Writing" categories, and the language suggests they are mainly concerned with a human doing the actual substantive work. So in this case, stunt work that is duly credited will probably still be eligible, even if they alter it as you suggest. The whole point of stunt work is to have a stand-in do it, but have it look like the main character in the final product.

Even before AI ate everything, a lot of visual effects have been created with CGI, and they still gave out Oscars for visual effects.

So, now, when I see senior developers (which I am not) vibe code green field projects, I am just astounded as to how they manage the architecture + understanding + optimization + maintenance context.

My experience is, they're not. Like the article says they are just focused on MOAR and not on the quality of the output. It may take years for the unmaintainable code to cause problems, and they may have already been laid off by the time that happens, anyway .

I don't write much code anymore, but when I did, there was a fair amount of embedded code, where fixing a bug is more costly than just pushing out a build to a production server. I actively sought out automation back then, but the purpose of the automation was to help cover edge cases and better test the embedded code for flaws that traced through multiple layers of code.

Whenever I start a new software project, it usually starts with a short period of experimentation when I try out several things. Then, I coalesce on an architecture in my head (and eventually document it), and once I do that I can add more structure to the code.

Given the state of the AI tools today, I can see myself using them to accelerate all the little fiddly parts of this (especially if I can give it a coding standard and have it stick to it). But I wouldn't trust it more than that. I would always keep the archictecture separate, because I don't trust the AI tools to change it on me for no good reason.