Anyone else noticed the increase of Vibe coded plugins flooding the market?

[MattCable]

report:
look, this was hours just to explain the delinearitioes of my controls and to define these.
my plugin is in gthat regard already better than anything out there

This is a good troll lol

[SNBeatz]

Just to understand what we're actually talking about. This is the claim that kicked off the data center fear and loathing. It overestimated water usage by 1000 times because journalists don't understand math.

Last month, journalist Karen Hao posted a Twitter thread in which she acknowledged that there was a substantial error in her blockbuster book Empire of AI. Hao had written that a proposed Google data center in a town near Santiago, Chile, could require “more than one thousand times the amount of water consumed by the entire population”—a figure which, thanks to a unit misunderstanding, appears to have been off by a magnitude of 1,000.

https://www.wired.com/story/karen-hao-e ... statistics

Here is the research writer that exposed the error:
https://andymasley.substack.com/s/ai-an ... e?sort=top

So it turns out the amount consumed will equal only and merely the water usage of that town's population, instead of 1000x more? I looked into this, it seems the author corrected the info immediately, and the bad info was provided to her by that township.

You got me digging deeper into this water issue, AI data-center water use is a problem no matter how you turn it. There's a few fallacies and inaccuracies in that article, even starting just from the idea of using that bad stat as a talking point:

-Just because that one stat is wrong doesn't mean, the real data isn't still bad. It's taking the weakest point you can find to discredit the wide-swath of credible info you could find about AI water usage.
-She didn't kick start the concern about water usage. You can find plenty concern prior.
-Andy Masley argues AI water use isn't bad when comparing it to total use, like golf courses around the world, but it ignores that the water use problem is an issue locally. In The Dalles, Oregon, a data center used 25% of their total water. The total amount of AI water use is large, but it's not when you compare it to the things he chose to compare it to. He'd rather you miss the forest for the trees (while obstensibly doing the opposite).

I could dive deeper and deeper, but I have a life to live like everyone else. I can't be writing extended Andy Maslay-style academic takedown essays anymore, so this will have to do on that specific issue.

I will say on the bigger issue, I instantly recognized this guys style and was correct- he's a direct descendant of Alexander Scott/Slate Star Codex, both are part of the Effective Altruism movement, which receives grants from Coefficient Giving/Open Philanthropy (which is funded by a couple of silicon valley billionaires). The specific writing style combined with it's agenda (while claiming zero agenda, they are "rationalist" grey-tribe members, after all), is always a dead giveaway. It's always very astute, well-researched and well-written, to the point of being impressive, even intoxicating, but still, somehow always ends up using a whole host of bad arguments (all while claiming they are addressing and correcting bad arguments).

I find the movement suspect- It's funding source comes from silicon-valley elites. We've seen the ethics and end game motives from more than a few of them. It's brilliant what they've done really. They brought on some of the greatest thinkers and writers, and I mean truly great, during a time when few are left. Those few people that are craving it, apparently people like us and many on this forum I'm sure, are desperate for it. Some of those Alexander Scott pieces got me thinking for years, even though I knew something was off. As I kept returning and digging deeper, I realized he was as flawed as anyone and used disingenuous arguments - he'd start somewhere fascinating and logical, but somehow make a twist that you could feel was manufactured, but god does it take some time to figure out the flaws of his logic, because he's gifted at slipping them in, and once he starts, he really gets going until your absorbed in that world and almost believe whatever is thrown your way. I don't believe someone as smart as him could make those errors by accident. A decade later we can see what the end game was- almost there.

I'll be putting this Andy Masley fellow in the same "current-day philosopher apologist for the new-tech overlords" category.

i’m glad to see someone beat me to this, as if we should all be relieved that it’s only using the same amount of water as the entire town. to be fair, using the water of 1000 towns is clearly worse, but both scenarios are not good.

the frustrating part is that so much of this investment of resources is based on this technology evolving into general AI when there is virtually no evidence suggesting that’s going to happen any time soon, if ever.

I think a lot of those directly involved know that Gen AI isn't a thing that's coming. The real point is to soak up (no pun intended) as much investor money and government subsidies/contracts (check out some of the Flock camera stuff if you don't want to sleep well ever again) before everyone else realizes and the bubble finally pops. It's literally the new billionaire rocket race but it's so much easier to push since most of society can find some sort of "use" instead of like... a dozen people and their friends

[yhvh]

Just to understand what we're actually talking about. This is the claim that kicked off the data center fear and loathing. It overestimated water usage by 1000 times because journalists don't understand math.

Last month, journalist Karen Hao posted a Twitter thread in which she acknowledged that there was a substantial error in her blockbuster book Empire of AI. Hao had written that a proposed Google data center in a town near Santiago, Chile, could require “more than one thousand times the amount of water consumed by the entire population”—a figure which, thanks to a unit misunderstanding, appears to have been off by a magnitude of 1,000.

https://www.wired.com/story/karen-hao-e ... statistics

Here is the research writer that exposed the error:
https://andymasley.substack.com/s/ai-an ... e?sort=top

So it turns out the amount consumed will equal only and merely the water usage of that town's population, instead of 1000x more? I looked into this, it seems the author corrected the info immediately, and the bad info was provided to her by that township.

You got me digging deeper into this water issue, AI data-center water use is a problem no matter how you turn it. There's a few fallacies and inaccuracies in that article, even starting just from the idea of using that bad stat as a talking point:

-Just because that one stat is wrong doesn't mean, the real data isn't still bad. It's taking the weakest point you can find to discredit the wide-swath of credible info you could find about AI water usage.
-She didn't kick start the concern about water usage. You can find plenty concern prior.
-Andy Masley argues AI water use isn't bad when comparing it to total use, like golf courses around the world, but it ignores that the water use problem is an issue locally. In The Dalles, Oregon, a data center used 25% of their total water. The total amount of AI water use is large, but it's not when you compare it to the things he chose to compare it to. He'd rather you miss the forest for the trees (while obstensibly doing the opposite).

I could dive deeper and deeper, but I have a life to live like everyone else. I can't be writing extended Andy Maslay-style academic takedown essays anymore, so this will have to do on that specific issue.

I will say on the bigger issue, I instantly recognized this guys style and was correct- he's a direct descendant of Alexander Scott/Slate Star Codex, both are part of the Effective Altruism movement, which receives grants from Coefficient Giving/Open Philanthropy (which is funded by a couple of silicon valley billionaires). The specific writing style combined with it's agenda (while claiming zero agenda, they are "rationalist" grey-tribe members, after all), is always a dead giveaway. It's always very astute, well-researched and well-written, to the point of being impressive, even intoxicating, but still, somehow always ends up using a whole host of bad arguments (all while claiming they are addressing and correcting bad arguments).

I find the movement suspect- It's funding source comes from silicon-valley elites. We've seen the ethics and end game motives from more than a few of them. It's brilliant what they've done really. They brought on some of the greatest thinkers and writers, and I mean truly great, during a time when few are left. Those few people that are craving it, apparently people like us and many on this forum I'm sure, are desperate for it. Some of those Alexander Scott pieces got me thinking for years, even though I knew something was off. As I kept returning and digging deeper, I realized he was as flawed as anyone and used disingenuous arguments - he'd start somewhere fascinating and logical, but somehow make a twist that you could feel was manufactured, but god does it take some time to figure out the flaws of his logic, because he's gifted at slipping them in, and once he starts, he really gets going until your absorbed in that world and almost believe whatever is thrown your way. I don't believe someone as smart as him could make those errors by accident. A decade later we can see what the end game was- almost there.

I'll be putting this Andy Masley fellow in the same "current-day philosopher apologist for the new-tech overlords" category.

i’m glad to see someone beat me to this, as if we should all be relieved that it’s only using the same amount of water as the entire town. to be fair, using the water of 1000 towns is clearly worse, but both scenarios are not good.

the frustrating part is that so much of this investment of resources is based on this technology evolving into general AI when there is virtually no evidence suggesting that’s going to happen any time soon, if ever.

I think a lot of those directly involved know that Gen AI isn't a thing that's coming. The real point is to soak up (no pun intended) as much investor money and government subsidies/contracts (check out some of the Flock camera stuff if you don't want to sleep well ever again) before everyone else realizes and the bubble finally pops. It's literally the new billionaire rocket race but it's so much easier to push since most of society can find some sort of "use" instead of like... a dozen people and their friends

very true. the gen ai magic future is the sales pitch, but at the end of the day it may well be the biggest con in human history. the tech industry has found the perfect combination of a technology that the public at large does not and will not truly understand to go with a fantasy that’s so enticing that governments are staking their nations futures on it all over the globe. and as you say, it’s so insidious because the thing they’ve got now does have real, tangible benefits that are changing things all over the place (in many cases not necessarily for the better but i digress…). so they see the world changing around them, they see the reason is this technology which to most is easy to conflate with gen ai because most people don’t even understand that these are different things, and suddenly 75% of the human population believes we’re 5-10 years away from a full on skynet situation.

meanwhile the billionaires driving this are able to accumulate such an unprecedented amount of wealth and power from this, who is going to hold them to account? we’re already in a world where we have individuals so wealthy they’re capable of basically single handedly tanking economies and who have most of the world powers invested in them, how do you give someone like that consequences?

eventually people will start figuring out that the thing we have now, while a big deal for several industries, isn’t on this magical path that’s going to become sentient computers running the world. in fact, we’re already seeing evidence that this is more or less as far as this thing goes. of course people will find new applications but the technology isn’t likely to evolve much beyond where it is now. it’ll get more efficient, but fundamentally it isn’t going to become anything else in all likelihood. once this is understood by the average person, things are going to get ugly. we’ve never seen a bubble like this one burst before. but make no mistake, the world didn’t commit all those resources to the tech industry just for what we have now. there’s only so long this thing can ride on hype and ignorance.