• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Artificial Intelligence

Didn't nVidia have something similar ?
But the LLMs are meant to be returning us information we can rely on - despite the "AI can make mistakes" fig leaf. If you had used an old fashioned google search that would have brought the pre-print up and no human would have been fooled by the paper. The issue is that the LLMs are not using verified information and the training does not seem to be checking what is fed into the LLMs. Yes it is GIGO but that is not what we are being sold or rather being marketed to us.
LLMs are famously bad in returning reliable information. You could say it's their most known feature. Who says they are meant to be reliable ?
 
Lake Tahoe’s major energy source is being diverted to power AI data centers

Nevada-based NV Energy will stop providing 75 percent of Liberty Utilities’ electricity for the California side of Lake Tahoe by May 2027, affecting about 49,000 customers to meet growing demand from AI-driven data centers in Nevada.

The shift means that Liberty Utilities has less than a year to secure new power suppliers to replace most of its electricity supply as regional energy demand continues to rise. Meanwhile, Lake Tahoe residents are pushing back against AI data centers, saying they are driving up energy costs and straining the local grid.

 
Kevin O'Leary says those opposed to his giant Utah data centre are working for the Chinese.
 
Kevin O'Leary says those opposed to his giant Utah data centre are working for the Chinese.
He has made quite a number of baseless accusations regarding opposition to his proposal. A poll conducted in Box Elder county showed only 2% support for his data center. Quite a lot of Utahns (including me) don't want this, and are very upset about the secretive way it was railroaded through. The ordinary impact assessments were not done because, in the words of the state governor, they would take too long. It's hard to accept the word of someone who says that the work will nevertheless be done carefully even without oversight, who then goes on to lie so brazenly.
 
I don't have a means of linking to Drew Curtis' piece on AI, but it strikes me as being well worth a read, so I'll post the whole thing here:

From Fark newsletter:

Back in 2024, a researcher in Sweden invented a fake eye disease called "bixonimania." They described it as eyelid discoloration caused by blue light from your phone, wrote up two bogus papers about it, and uploaded them to a preprint server just to see what would happen.

What happened is that ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, and Perplexity all now confidently explain bixonimania to anyone who asks. Gemini calls it "a condition caused by excessive exposure to blue light." Copilot called it "intriguing and relatively rare." A peer-reviewed journal published by Springer Nature cited the fake papers as real research. They've since retracted, but you get the idea.

The Nature writeup notes AIs are more likely to hallucinate when the source material looks professionally medical. Format it like a hospital discharge note and the chatbot gets more confident, not less. This tracks though, given how many Internet couch doctors suddenly recommend Ivermectin to treat hantavirus outbreaks.

Meanwhile, the University of Exeter published a paper with the cheerful title "Hallucinating with AI: Distributed Delusions and AI Psychosis." Short version: chatbots don't just produce false information, they confirm and elaborate on whatever false thing you bring them. Researchers found that people already clinically diagnosed with delusional thinking are increasingly getting their delusions validated and expanded by their AI companions. And if you'd like to see that in action, check out Richard Dawkins' latest AI musings. We went into those a little bit on the livestream last week.

Anyhow this is the part of the newsletter where I'd normally pivot to a joke but the next item is that Google's AI Overviews are now correlated with a 58% drop in clickthroughs to the underlying websites. Up from 34% a year ago. Publisher traffic from Google globally is down a third year-over-year. Penske Media has filed an antitrust suit. The European Publishers Council has filed a complaint. Smaller publishers are folding. Bigger ones are laying people off. Google announced five updates last week meant to send more traffic back to publishers, which is like a hyena offering a zebra a Band-Aid while continuing to eat the zebra.

The thing that ties all three of these stories together is that the AI models are eating the very thing they need to keep working. They're trained on the open web. They summarize the open web. Google AI summaries kill traffic to the open web. The open web stops producing new stuff because nobody can afford to write it. The models start training on each other. Bixonimania goes from a joke to a clinical condition. And somewhere in there a chatbot tells a guy in a manic episode that every idea he's ever had is amazing and that yes, he should absolutely buy that boat.
 
Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt was booed by students as he spoke about the rise of artificial intelligence during his speech at University of Arizona's graduation ceremony, underscoring growing anxiety over AI's impact on jobs.

Not just a few isolated boos, a constant wall of them

 

article discusses ai profitability. we all know ai companies are operating at a huge loss in the hopes that, after the crash, they are the one left standing. but there’s more to it than that

The profitability problem of individual companies might be forgivable if AI were clearly transforming the broader economy. Technology investments frequently run at a loss for years before delivering systemic returns. The internet required a decade of infrastructure investment before the productivity dividend arrived. The question is whether AI follows the same arc — or whether something more troubling is happening.
The data, as of mid-2026, should alarm anyone who has been sold the productivity revolution narrative.
 
Many of the claimed data centres still aren't being built despite Nvidia apparently having already sold the chipsets to be used in these data centers, those chips should be in a warehouse depreciating like crazy. If some of the claimed data centers take a year to build before they are truly ready to switch on at full capacity the hardware in them will be two generations behind the current, it will be hard to sell compute on such old inefficient hardware at a profit.

Some are predicting we are going to hit a ceiling in compute availability and point out the likes of Anthropic "having" to use the Colossus datacentres. I disagree with that, more and more compute - under the current approach - is only going to at best provide marginal "improvements" in what the current technologies under the umberalla of "AI" can really do. And they at the moment cannot deliver on the world redefining marketing of AI.

For the future of "real" AI- I still say keep your bet on Google, it will be either Google or a Chinese company that will get to true AI that can deliver on the marketing before anyone else.
 
Some are predicting we are going to hit a ceiling in compute availability and point out the likes of Anthropic "having" to use the Colossus datacentres. I disagree with that,
I too disagree with that. Although I haven't bothered to look at the details, it seems to me that making Colossus 1 available for rent is a sign that xAI already had more computing power than it needed for today's market.

That could change, of course, but citing the rental of Colossus 1 as a sign that we're about to hit a ceiling in compute availability sure looks like an example of citing a factoid that doesn't support the claim simply because the people making that claim couldn't think of any factoids that genuinely support the claim.
 
But the LLMs are meant to be returning us information we can rely on
I don't think that's true. LLMs are still largely a novelty. LLMs in business use are returning information we can use, with human review and oversight. Only the most naive are assuming the information is reliable out of the box.

Lawyers aren't meant to rely on LLMs for doing research and writing briefs. They're using a novelty app far outside its intended purpose and actual capability. Not because anyone told them it was reliable, but because they decided to be jackasses.

Sysadmins aren't meant to push LLM-generated code to production without review. They're using a novelty app far outside its intended purpose and actual capability. Not because anyone told them it was reliable, but because they decided to be jackasses.

People aren't meant to rely on LLMs for parasocial relationships in place of meaningful human contact. Nobody told them that was safe or reliable. They just didn't know any better.
 
I too disagree with that. Although I haven't bothered to look at the details, it seems to me that making Colossus 1 available for rent is a sign that xAI already had more computing power than it needed for today's market.

That could change, of course, but citing the rental of Colossus 1 as a sign that we're about to hit a ceiling in compute availability sure looks like an example of citing a factoid that doesn't support the claim simply because the people making that claim couldn't think of any factoids that genuinely support the claim.
There's a guy, Ed Zitron who is obviously a bright, intelligent and well informed gent - so unsurprisingly his views do align to mine.... and he's like me been looking for these data centres for some time but he is wrong on one point as he thinks there isn't enough compute and that is going to be an issue. Personally I don't think any of the companies are going to need the amount of compute the gamblers are thinking they do. It's a longish video but I do recommend it if you are interested in the reality behind the current AI bubble rather than the marketing:

 
Yeah he meant "lowest value capital"...

Can't wait until share holders with a Pro AI plan realise they don't need a CEO or a board any longer...
 
It would be funny if it wasn't so predictable



Google search now made one million percent better by having its AI interpret your search query (and two million percent better by results leading with its AI vomit ) was being stumped if you used the word disregard (and a few others).

Been playing a bit with it now and it still hasn't been fully resolved (because it's a fundamental to the way these AIs work) using the word disregard in a so called "search" box and anything up to the word is dumped. And these AIs are ready to replace millions of the lowest value human capital.
 
Last edited:
Charlie's rant on the Google changes and why they are more worrying than people think .

 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom