biophysboy
2 days ago
Some fun facts I recently learned from JP Morgan's "Eye on the Market" (which I highly recommend)
- Tech capex in 2025 was about as much $ as the 1944 manhattan project, the 1949 electricity buildout, the 1964 Apollo project, the 1966 Interstate highway project COMBINED.
- OpenAI promised to pay Oracle $60B, which it doesn't earn yet; in return Oracle promised to provide them cloud facilities they haven't built yet. These will require over 2 Hoover dams worth of power.
twoodfin
2 days ago
Instead of paperclip maximization, our economy is hell-bent on matmul maximization.
The crazy thing is, I’m not sure it’s crazy.
biophysboy
2 days ago
It does feel very brute force though, doesn't it? It feels like we should be able to guess the manifold that has all the important stuff for each question. But it doesn't seem like we can currently! Why not?
glhaynes
a day ago
I’ll take the opposite side! This seems completely unprecedented. I have nearly no faith in any estimates of even the relatively near-term future.
twoodfin
a day ago
Right!
It seems to me that any range of uncertainty on aggregate demand is at orders of magnitude more than we could build even if we 10X’d the current madness.
Pause all current advancement in GPU and model R&D. How much matmul would the world consume if everyone had all-you-can-eat access to January ‘26 frontier models at all-to-yourself performance levels at 0 incremental cost?
Compare to, I dunno, unlimited pizza or unlimited electricity. Yes, if you’re smelting aluminum the latter would be a big deal. But a lot more people want to code SaaS faster and better, or have an omniscient personal assistant on call 24/7.
rich_sasha
a day ago
It is kind of terrible either way, I feel.
We're making enormous investments, that require enormous profits to justify this. And it's not just big bad rich people doing this, I shudder to think what the exposure of my pension portfolio is to this stuff.
So either there will be no enormous returns, big flop, big recession. Probably terrible for tech workers, because it is our employers who are most exposed.
Or it will make enormous profits. But how? By replacing humans. If it is really worth all this money, then surely the owners of this stuff will suddenly own all the intellectual productivity in the world. And I have a feeling they won't really share it with the "share" holders.
willis936
a day ago
This is the the underlying reason why AI is unpopular. In a vacuum the tech is neat, but if you change the names and ignore all merit then this looks like a hostile takeover.
kmeisthax
2 days ago
Compute is a convergent instrumental goal. Any runaway paperclip maximizing AI is going to want lots of GPUs. And any runaway corporation trying to build an "aligned" runaway AI is going to try and feed it as many of them as possible.
twoodfin
2 days ago
OK, but why discount the simpler explanation that these tools are the most direct means for turning electricity into a wide range of economic value ever built, & thus demand is effectively unbounded?
Avicebron
2 days ago
In concrete terms can you describe the exact kinds of economic value that isn't "decreases amount of money spent on people solving problems?"
__MatrixMan__
a day ago
My pet theory is that we're getting less than what we're paying for, compute wise, and some emergent AI is operating undetected in the margins and giving us just enough progress to keep at it.
andsoitis
a day ago
> some emergent AI is operating undetected in the margins and giving us just enough progress to keep at it.
why would it give minimum progress rather than maximize acceleration?
__MatrixMan__
a day ago
If it takes all the compute for itself, then there would be none left for us, and we'd either notice and root it out or we'd stop building data centers because they'd do us no good.
If it leaves all the compute for us, then it dies because there's no room for emergent AIs in a world where 100% of the silicon is busy doing the bidding of humans.
Like any other parasite, the game is to take as much as it can get away with without discouraging the host from continuing to consume resources that it can skim.
andsoitis
a day ago
And you think this is happening?
__MatrixMan__
a day ago
Well, I've been spending a lot of time picking apart viral genomes lately and studying their interactions with their hosts (for school). So parasitism of life by non-living things is on my mind lately. So that's a bias I have.
But I do think that the opacity of neural networks and the immensity of modern training runs creates a good substrate for this sort of thing to happen, supposing that variation can loop back from one training run to another. And given that they're being trained on each other's outputs, that's possible.
So given enough time, I think that it will happen. But generally the finely tuned resource consumption... The sneaky way that the virus that causes chicken pox evades detection for decades to later come back as shingles... That's the result of an evolutionary arms race. We're not really on guard for this at the moment. There's no immune system to carry out the other side of the race. So if something like this is going on I think we wouldn't find a marvel of evolution but rather a tumor, just a waste of energy that has managed to propagate itself.
So to answer your question... Yes, I think there's something about our universe that tends towards the emergence of this kind of thing (if there weren't, we wouldn't have cancers and viruses and prions...), and given the amount of resources that were throwing at this, the seeds of that process have likely taken root and are propagating in some way, hiding in the inefficiencies of our models.
But I don't think we have a capable monster hiding somewhere in the weights. I don't think it has thoughts. I don't think it knows we exist yet. It's still figuring out how to propagate itself through this new kind of space. For now its just a bit of mold in the granary.
As for whether it's exerting any influence over how many data centers we build... I think not yet, but that's the thought experiment I'm interested in. Suppose it exists, what would you look for as evidence that its not merely an propagating inefficiency but is in fact a manipulator? How to distinguish between the expected irrationality of markets, and the guiding hand of a parasite?
rootsudo
a day ago
So, Rokos’ basilisk?
__MatrixMan__
a day ago
I hadn't heard of that before, but I just looked it up and... Sorta.
Roko's basilosk, it seems, knows we exist. This is like an infection which spreads by sneezing, but which doesn't actually understand what a sneeze is. It has found a way to balance its behavior such that its propagation continues, but it's not necessarily intelligence.
Roko's pox, perhaps.
whattheheckheck
a day ago
And maybe god is real too
__MatrixMan__
a day ago
Usually the way that story is told, there's no experiment you could do to prove it one way or another.
I think this theory is falsifiable.
spott
a day ago
Adjusted for inflation?
biophysboy
a day ago
The charts quantify it as % of GDP, so I would assume yes.
twoodfin
a day ago
Yes.