Видео

Very interesting and balanced discussion. It is about time we saw and heard the Chinese perspective. Our stereotypical media approach reflects solely on us. Not on them. The Race to the Top summaries it perfectly. China is not cheating yet you bought it up three times. The Chinese have invested intellectual effort, training and development, engineering design over 20 years. We have sat on our hands and let our fossil driven masters tell us in the west how to think and how to frame things for way too long.

Why can't we use AI to solve the power consumption of AI

Dear Michael and Dear AI bot: For any future version: Is there a way to remove the sort of sharpiness in the voice that your natural voice doesn't seem to have? It would be more agreeable to listen to. Regarding the matter: Listening to the episode and thinking about the implications to me it seems that in certain cases it may make a lot of sense to delay some of these projects by just a few years, for example like the Irish do it due to power considerations, resulting in the harvesting of the opportunities to then use even more efficient xPU's so the same computing power will be able to run 24/7 without a new power plant need being built next to it. On top of that it may make most sense to tear down some 6 of the running data centers in a broader region and replacing them by one that beats them all in processing and uses 1/10-th of the power of just 1 out of the 6 did before? Hence reducing power demand for the same output by /60.

I don’t ever see me using AI software personally. Definitely not paying for it. I hope AI will overall prove positive for humanity but I’m cautious and sceptical. Things could go badly wrong and I don’t trust the billionaires in control.

They need Ai to help them get off our dying planet that they caused and are panicking

GOOD WORK!!!

Thanks, that was a really enlightening debate. And well balanced and grown up. Re nuclear. I feel that it's had its chance to prove itself. Billions of £'s have been spent on it worldwide. What benefits could we obtain if that spending were now diverted to alternatives? Geothermal, wave, tidal, demand management, insulation? Also it's immoral, imo, to create waste that will be left for future generations to sort out. Furthermore, no one talks about the long-term environmental or financial costs of this waste. Finally, all thermal generation systems, NP or fossil, dump heat into either our atmosphere or oceans. Both are warmed by this, in addition to CO2 induced climate change. We must stop burning stuff, both fossil fuels and uranium.

Excellent episode!

My friend works for a consultancy firm advising companies about integrating AI into their businesses. The last couple of projects concluded that the only thing AI could replace was their own consultancy work 😅

some twisted logic here, wind turbines being more efficient the burning coal, it is complete nonsense they are similar efficiency.

I think this podcast will age in a matter of weeks. DeepSeek has released its model as open source. It only needs 132Mb and uses much less energy than ChatGPT. It is not the same as ChatGPT but does do things that ChatGPT can not do. Also, China being 5 years behind the US is wishful thinking by American analysts, as shown by its release of DeepSeek. On the 10-year scale, China also seems to be ahead in optical computing although it is still early.

There are enough trends and counter-trends going into this to give someone a splitting headache. And it creates enormous room for hype.

20:20 Watch your language.

If there's a concern about power demand for data centers, maybe it would be wise not to go down rabbit holes like bitcoin mining.

Analog Could be the Future of AI. Analog GPUs hold significant promise for the future of AI due to their potential for increased energy efficiency and processing speed. Unlike digital GPUs that represent data as discrete 0s and 1s, analog GPUs leverage continuous physical phenomena, such as voltage or current, to perform computations. This approach can lead to substantial energy savings, as it avoids the overhead associated with digital encoding and decoding. Additionally, analog computations can be inherently faster for certain types of AI workloads, such as those involving matrix multiplications, which are fundamental to many AI algorithms. Energy Efficiency Energy consumption is a major concern for AI, especially as models grow larger and more complex. Analog GPUs offer a potential solution by significantly reducing power requirements. This is crucial for both reducing operational costs and minimizing the environmental impact of AI.

Bezos has revealed his cowardice in kissing the ring of the incoming Conman and Climate Denier in Chief. As they say, reputations take years to build but minutes to destroy. Pitiful

Excellent summary of the AI-Electrical supply issue.

Ultimatly there will be AIs running on a few hundred Watts if not less. At this point all these power stations will be toast.

Brillant, thanks!

The AI you used to produce your artificial bits has some unusual tempo - you speak in a consistent way, the AI doesn't mimic that well enough to escape detection! Thank you for another rivetting blog.

The 7 pound brain inside my 180 pound body uses 20% of the energy i consume.

People will soon wake up to the realization that not predictive & generative Alghos are the main constraints in systems optimization & resilience But the sensors, actors, valid, stable context data & ‚market‘ rule designs. As well of human oversight to identify ‚overfitting‘. As the inventor of UML said: A fool with a tool …

The human brain runs on 20 watts at rest and roughly 100 Watts at peak performance. Over the last year techniques have been developed to reduce the electrical requirements of AI significantly. There's no reason that AI will not become more efficient over time. I agree that the cost of electricity for AI may make some our options prohibitively expensive in the short-term.

Fantastic wrap up about this hit topic. As the publier is endorsing the content délivred, Who gîves a f**k about the part that was generted with IAs. (For those who cares, the answer is given at the end of this crucial episode)

Building AI data centres require electricity now, they can't wait fouteen years or more for a new nuclear power station, or rely on gas generators for fouteen years, besides they are more likely to go for the cheapest energy which is currently from renewables + storage. What happens when they have to shut the power station down for refueling anyway? AI data centres have a verry erratic demand for electricity so every on is likely to have battery storage to smooth out demand, hence Tesla have an advantage as they also produce battery grid storage and they already have a couple of hundred transformers in stock.

Thank you for joining us for this episode of Cleaning Up. Can you tell which Michael is the real Michail? For a full reading list to accompany this audioblog, visit and subscribe to our substack: open.substack.com/pub/cleaninguppod/p/a-super-secret-ai-reading-list

Wind power is easy to shut off,no cost

Thorcon is aiming for 30$ meg Rolls roys up300% 18 months

Electron beam welding can weld it up in a day Natium reactor might be better,will take 5 yrs to license

Trump: There is no climate issue, therefore, no climate race

High temp heat pumps are a dead end, high investment short term fix to a long term problem. Air to water will only work long term with low temp in floor heat, will provide much better heat storage also. Air to air for the rest. Brits are ridiculous thinking they can electrically heat medieval homes with minimal modifications.

Using any form of psychology upon any human being to obtain any goal is a form of abuse.

exciting topics, thanks.

Fazer energia limpa pode ser fácil. fazer isso virar uma fonte rentável e viável é o negócio $$$ . O mercado da despoluicao vai ficar para a geotermia , e geradoras eletricas de hidrogênio . Peguem o "gasoso perigoso fujão"( CO e CO2) e coloquem o " negocio fedorento "( emissões gasosas ) nos canos . A missão da despoluição será essa. Vão precisar muita energia para isso. Depois de terem chegado ao entendimento sobre isso , as empresas vão começar a produzir suas fábricas voltadas a esse mercado .

Mesmo tendo essa tecnologia limpa , essas usinas vão precisar passar pela seleção do rendimento eletro termo gasoso para ter a aprovação no custo final de implantação e operação e fabricação em série de modelos padrão. Mexer com energia e com a natureza é a função dessa tecnologia setorial . O custo final de capacidade livre instalada (kw livre) por volume de água por calorias usadas precisa ser muito baixo para viabilizar uma produção escalonada de modelos padrão. O custo de investimento operacional em moeda por rendimento operacional e custo de investimento de produção e implantação em moeda por capacidade livre instalada precisa ser baixo. E isso que vai ser necessário na próxima rodada de energia mundial.

The "levels" are irrelevant. My car drives me everywhere NOW. I sit and watch it because I have to. Those who say otherwise clearly are not keeping up with the industry.

@1:04:54 any company wanting to build a data center in space, because they think space is cold, and that will keep their data centers cold for free, has incredibly stupid people working for them. At least people who have never looked at the International Space station, or study the laws of thermodynamics... Space itself isn't that cold, and also because of the near vacuum, the only way to transmit Heat is through radiation... No conduction, no convection. It's one of the biggest problems on the ISS, most of those panels you see on the International Space Station are not for solar, they're for cooling. Then there's the fact that you need a strong radiation Shield to make sure that your information isn't having its digital bits flipped by cosmic rays... So all that, coupled with the fact it'll cost you hundreds of millions, if not billions, of more dollars to send and build a robust Data Center in space, is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.

Electro, or coal? 😂😂😂

Sounds like they have accomplished next to zero. Not surprising.

I'm 18 minutes into this and not one objective outcome has been discussed. Listen to Rory Stuart discuss Direct Giving. This is nonsense

Globally wind and solar account for 5% of primary energy, energy demand is increasing, China used 4.2 billion tonnes of coal last year, globally the world consumes 100 million barrels of oil daily. Their is no energy transition.

This is such a bizarre interview. Generally, when you have a guest like Rory, the host would want to keep them talking as long as the guest wants to talk. Like, if Rory wants to continue a discussion for another 30 or 45 minutes, what good reason does the host have to cut the conversation short? Dude kept trying to cut Rory's answers short, as if they had to get end the interview by a certain time. And at the end, he basically was like....we can't talk anymore. Why not just let the conversation go as long as it goes....and if you need to edit it down later, then do that. I am curious as to what time constraint he had and why he would schedule an interview when he had a time constraint (the interviewer, not Rory).

*Look. In. Vietnam.* Dumping all their pollution onto their Belt & Road allies. Wish it were true; frankly if they were more open and cooperative rather than nationalistic and glass-hearted? Not only They but WE would together be on The Moon already. -I can't imagine what genuine cooperation between our nations would look like but it ain't these past 100.-

‘Pretend meat’ is my usual nomenclature as a vegetarian for the fake meat products like Quorn that I eat occasionally. I’d mentall potentially be up for eating lab grown meat if it’s safe.

Growing biomass for electricity generation is a very poor use of nature. In 2023 the UK had about 133,000 ha of arable land growing bioenergy crops. If used to grow high performing energy crops, such as miscanthus gianteus (14t DM/ha), it could have generated about 3TWh of electricity using thermal generation, such as Drax. The real quantity would probably be significantly less once you take out the energy used for farming and transportation etc. If that land was used for solar farms it could have generated probably at least 90TWh (average over lifetime), probably more, so that is over 30 times more electricity production, and without the need for fertiliser pesticides or water, apart from possible occasional cleaning. Yes we need to sort out seasonal storage but that's another issue which would take up a comparatively insignificant amount of space. And it gets better for solar, because by the time the panels need replacing the new ones will probably produce about double the amount of electricity, where is the yield from biofuel crops is more likely to go down

Sad to listen to this months later as much of what could have been will likely be unwound and changed direction on by the new administration.

This is not a race. It is Rucking, and America is the weight.

Bryony constantly spruiking nuclear is so annoying. NO, it's NOT an anti-science argument to be against nuclear. It's the economic writing on the wall regard how long they take to build and how expensive they blow out to costing. Just look at Hinkley Point. And find me an actual SMR that's functioning and production line ready, rather than a fart in the wind from a start-up begging for venture capital. We can build the same capacity in wind and solar so much more quickly and cheaply and overlapping enough that we don't need this much-bemoaned firming capacity (and nukes don't actually work well with renewable in that regard anyway - just refer back to your own guest, Rosie Barnes!). I'm a scientifically-minded individual and I take exception to the accusation that my objection to nuclear is of the same ilk as those who fear it. My objections are entirely evidence-based and Bryony's support seems to be wishful thinking. Even Michael agrees in the last episode! Don't get me wrong, I'd love it another option for clean generation, but nuclear ain't it. I would also point out that it's not entirely renewable - you have to mine the uranium from somewhere, then transport it to be processed, process it, then transport it to the plant, use it, then treat it and encapsulate it for storage (and where are we going to put it?) and transport it to that storage. All of that is a non-renewable process that has a bunch of emissions overheads.

US spreads lies and disinformation to demonize China so as to try to contain China progress. US has zero dignity and moral standing. When US cannot beats China fairly, uses lowlife tactics such as sanction, tariff and gotten Canada to detain Huawei CFO illegally (tried to use the same tactic as how US destroyed French's Alstom). US just want to contain China progress by all means which includes spreading lies, disinformation, false accusations, implementing sanction and ganging other countries to suppress China progress etc. US has lost their dignity in front of the world to see. US accelerates their own decline. Pretty stupid to me. US lies and security is just an excuse. US dare not say that US just want to contain China progress by all means.

We don't need to replace meat, we need to replace the whole animal for it to be a fair comparison, gelatine for toilet paper for example, activated carbon to filter sugar, to turn ir white they use bone char. Wheat and corn are grasses, they are easiest to grow and considering cattle are mostly on non arable land, what inputs is grown protein in vats going to mean less emissions? edit "If the herd size hasn't increased in 100 years and methane is gone after that long cattle are carbon neutral if the herd size hasn't increased, like a lot of modern cointries.