I am asking a lot here, but school needs to be training people what AI is and what it's weaknesses are and how to use it... My school taught me to use a calculator. It also taught me how to check my work when I relied on the calculator.
AI is a very complicated calculator - you give it an input, magic happens, it gives you an output. Really no different, to a layman.
To be fair, this should probably be covered by basic physics/maybe cooking classes. “You can’t determine the calories in food by looking at it” isn’t really ML specific.
Won't help much if kids are ai'ing their way through physics then ten years later need to go on a diet having not applied the knowledge possibly ever or exercised their critical thinking skills
Considering the lack of basic math skills I encounter each and every day, I don't think schools did enough; they certainly aren't going to do enough w/LLMs.
Knowing the lack of understanding of basic chemistry and physics like fundamental thermodynamics... I have little hope any population can be trained to understand LLMs sufficiently...
It's more complicated than a calculator. Even researchers who have dedicated their lives to the field don't know all of the limitations of any given model. That fact alone isn't helpful when a model is 80% correct in one area but 2% in another.
If even experts in the field don’t know all of the limitations then it’s even more important to stress that relying on the output of an LLM is a poor choice without additional checking and verification.
Even with calculators, I was taught that you should double check by hand sometimes to make sure you got it right.
To me, someone without a full understanding of the AI systems, it seems like the problem is most strongly influenced by image classification. The next logical step in this research is to remove image classification from the loop, since it's a confounding factor.
Minimum vacation days here in Germany are 20 with many companies offering 30 so the idea that you can't take of at least a couple of weeks for a vacation is just crazy to me.
I'm almost 17 years in and there's been a few times where I had more than 10 days off in a row, and I recently had a four week sabbatical. Anecdotally, it was great and reminded me that retirement has always been the goal.
To me, “work 40+ years and retire when you’re already physically and mentally slow” is the real nonsense. A sabbatical thrown in here and there doesn’t make up for it. I’m grateful that I live somewhere with high enough paying jobs that I can simply quit after just 20 years.
Sabbaticals, paid or not, seem to only be somewhat common in western Europe. I'm glad that you're able to able to experience this but recognize it's quite a privilege globally. It's not just the USA that has this "nonsense"
Work culture is so weird. What do you mean, it's reserved for the elites?
In my country you get to build your holiday days, so I could totally take a month off if I don't take any other days off this year. Hell, we even have a website to perfectly time it here so you get the most bang-for-your-days. lmao.
I will never comprehend this Silicon Valley mindset. You can also be a 10x engineer while drinking a martini in the balkans.
Lives don't exist in vacuums. If I could uproot my close friends and family and we all moved to the same place then I would, but that's not possible. I'm sure it's the same for a lot of people
This was mostly in response to "You can also be a 10x engineer while drinking a martini in the balkans." and is likely a bit of an overreaction to the amount of "just move if you don't like it!" things I've seen. Mobility is a luxury
Uprooting family and friends has little to do with taking a month off, but if things don't fall right then one runs the risk of spending their month off mostly by themselves which may or may not be attractive. I've known single teachers complain about this that they have June-August off but no one to spend it with because most of their friends are not teachers
I live in New York. A very old very famous manufacturer of firearms, Remington Arms, which employed hundreds of people and was the economic engine of its community was forced by the State of New York to shut down. That community cannot replace what was lost when the factory closed. Poverty, crime, drugs have moved in to the void.
You may be right that guns are are corrosive to a democratic society, that's an open debate. But the people who depended on that factory had the rug pulled and real harm was done without any regard to their welfare. And not everyone who depended on the factory worked there, deli owners and dry cleaners, these types of legitimate businesses are damaged when a major employer closes doors.
I suppose I relate this story to you just to show that, there are other people who think like you, guns are stigmatized, and it has a real human cost. We should not be flippant with our neighbor's well being, because we can't predict the turns of fate, one day it might be our turn.
Your statement is not grounded in the truth. Remnington did not shut down because of government interference. They employed a grand total of 100 people in NY. Hardly the "economic engine of its community"
They shutdown because they sold 7.5 million guns that could fire without someone pulling the trigger and 60 minutes exposed it.
And you should know that their building is being converted into a 250,000 sqft AI data center. So it's not like employment is just lost in the area.
Yup. When you make a boo-boo that big there's no recovery. And since they hid the problem it grew and grew. Personally, I would like to see hiding major safety defects become a criminal charge with the provision that if you go to the cops before they come looking that you're not guilty even if you share in the guilt.
straw man argument. This was about social stigma of weapons and you told a story about a factory being force closed and the surrounding community degrading by that.
We should not keep bad things alive just because jobs depend on it.
How much does power and grid delivery cost in Canada to make this economical? You're into this for $15,000 what is your payback period? Are there other ameliorating criteria for success?
I'm actually in GA (Canadian Solar is the panel manufacturer - CSI). Power is cheap in my region, and I was in ~$30k after all costs including the battery storage (LFP).
It covers 95+% of the my usage, and I use a fair chunk of power. My payback period will be almost exactly 120 months (10 years) if my power costs remained the same as they did at estimation time.
But they won't. We're already seeing relatively large rate increases (GA power has "locked" rates but conveniently has a floating "fuel charge" which is currently more than the base rate per watt...).
I expect it to take 6 to 8 years to entirely recoup costs. It helps that I did the install myself, so I avoided contractor markup. Quotes from contractors for a similar install were running ~60k+ which felt (and was) insane, although STILL profitable over the lifespan of the install.
Panels should then last another 20+ years after repayment with only minor maintenance.
It's shocking how easily they pay for themselves right now, assuming you get decent sun on your property.
That sounds like a reasonable investment I appreciate you walking me through it, thanks.
I'm in New York state, power here is still relatively cheap, $0.2/kwh delivered, low solar insolation angle and snow cover during highest demand months should strongly disincentize solar here. Some homeowners took the plunge when rebates and incentives were at their peak but those are starting to phase out.
We're still seeing a high rate of industrial solar being placed in ag zones. New York has some of the most fertile soil in the country, and supplies significant ag resources to the northeast. cSi cells are liable to leach lead into ag soil and watersheds, and solid waste disposal are looming problems without regulatory structure in New York. I'm afraid that in my home state we're going to see a net negative impact from solar.
The state is now pushing local municipalities to site grid scale BESS systems. This works because storage doesn't need to be close to demand, so they're being pushed into poor rural communities. The problem is local fire departments are undertrained and under equipped to deal with emergencies at BESS sites. It's inevitable we'll see an uncontained fire in upstate New York and the consequences will be difficult to manage.
This all may sound like gripe. But I'm genuinely curious about the economics of solar because at the end of the day it's the determining factor in the cost benefit analysis.
Modern production no longer includes lead (lead free solder).
For comparison... a single tank of leaded gasoline could hold more lead (1.1g/gallon) than a solar panel and unlike solar panels where the lead is insoluble and stable... burning the gasoline aerosolized the lead. So does burning coal (another significant source of lead contamination...).
Basically - I'd worry a hell of a lot more about lead pipes, lead paint, lead coal ash, and lead av gas before I worried about lead in panels. Lead solder is used in a wide variety of products still, but it's usually not considered a contamination risk.
---
Look - all forms of power generation have risks and downsides. Solar does outstandingly well compared to basically everything else we've got. It also happens to be cheaper to deploy, and it's still getting cheaper.
If I were rural and had to pick between an ESS system with LFP batteries and a coal plant... I'd pick the batteries EVERY DAMN TIME. Hell - I'd probably pick an LFP ESS system over a new golf course in terms of my own safety...
Yes, today there are zero coal plants (although one that uses it as an alternative generation means still).
Funny that we've managed that over the last ~10 years... it's almost like some other power sources are magically replacing the harm that they'd do?
because there were plenty of them ~2010, I'm aware of at least 8, I'll list them
- Samuel A. Carlson Electric Generating Station (still uses coal as alternate fuel today)
- Fort Drum (converted from coal in 2013)
- Kodak Park (converted from coal in 2018)
- Westover 8 (coal, retired in 2011)
- Hickling Power Station (coal, retired in 2000, so I didn't count this as one of the 8)
- Cayuga 1, 2, IC1, and IC2 (coal, retired in 2019)
- Dunkirk Generating Station (coal, retired 2016)
- Huntley Generating Station (coal, retired 2016)
- Somerset (coal, retired 2020)
Almost like... installing alternative power means we can remove really, really nasty sources? And hey, NY isn't as strong a contender for solar as it is wind. But the economics of wind are a lot harder in more places, and solar is still gaining ground (47% decrease in installation costs measured in NY over the last decade).
And I'm aware a lot of this is a shift to natural gas, it's cheap and flexible, so we're bridging old plants to ng as we ramp up alternatives.
Maybe you should consider what it is you're looking for in policies instead?
Solar didn't replace the coal because solar isn't productive in winter when demand is highest.
>And I'm aware a lot of this is a shift to natural gas
Woops, there it is
>Maybe you should consider what it is you're looking for in policies instead?
I'm looking for truth in advertising. Solar has been adopted largely for political reasons, without duly recognizing the full cost.
Batteries are being pushed into NY now to shift solar power from day to night, and from sunny days to cloudy days, a cost not accounted in the original sales pitch. Liquid phase batteries containing toxic chemicals and track record of fires - being pushed into poor communities than can't afford to properly deal with the issues.
But even batteries won't fix the real problem - solar is seasonal, and it produces power during the summer, and in New York the summers are warm and pleasant. But in the winter, when it's cold and dark, solar power drops out, and there's nothing you can do to fix that.
Now the goal post is shifting again, and the search is on for a site to build a nuke plant along the shore of Lake Ontario - far from the strong NIMBY environmental groups of NYC
Frankly, the US EPA has established there is no safe level of lead exposure. Lead is bioaccumulative. To be placing lead containing materials in prime ag land should be considered seriously and with a sober mind.
I spoke to a colleague today who works closely with rural communities on emerging issues like industrial solar. He says he is recommending his clients to require baseline soil testing and annual soil testing to confirm hazardous materials are not being released to the environment. He said his clients have not seen elevated lead levels, but the concern is warranted. He also recommends 30 year decommissioning bonds be established prior to construction and $50,000 highway bonds for damage to road surface. Bottom line, serious people are requiring serious commitments from solar developers.
Look - I agree with you that concern is appropriate.
I disagree strongly with you when you start making claims like
> cSi cells are liable to leach lead into ag soil and watersheds, and solid waste disposal are looming problems without regulatory structure in New York. I'm afraid that in my home state we're going to see a net negative impact from solar.
I think you're no longer making a real argument based on facts and data at this point, you're making an emotional appeal that supports your existing bias. You're taking any negative, exhaustively focusing on it with exclusion of facts about alternative power generation means, and then declaring solar bad.
But I think the blunt reality is that basically every other form of power generation we have has negatives that outweigh those of solar (often by fairly incredible margins when we look at generation costs alongside those negative externalities).
So if you really think that moving batteries once for installation is more harmful to road surfaces than a never ending stream of fuel tankers that weigh up near 100k lbs... or that solar is worse than fracking for natural gas, or pollution from coal, or the environmental destruction and waterway damage from hydro... Well, then we don't agree. Period.
And sadly for you... solar has the benefit of being much cheaper to install and maintain. So the economics mean it's coming.
Not at all. Basically everywhere had a one for one feed in tariff when residential solar was new in their area.
Friends in Australia are still grandfathered into that (they got a 1.3kw system in like 1990)
In Germany for a long time the law was three to one for green energy you generated and gave to the grid. Ie you put in 1kwh they credit you 3.
Even today basically every location can grid tie and get a feed in tariff, the ratio just depends on how many people in your area got residential solar before you.
Subtropical latitudes in continental US markets, you're looking at like $2/yr/sq ft of value for the power output.
I'd want solar panels for like $5/sq ft installed, expecting 10 years of life.
It's going to cost $1000 minimum to install, so the panels need to cost $2/sq ft x 300 sq ft to make this worth it. $1000 to install 300 sq ft + inverter and electrical panel upgrades seems light but might be reasonable we'll go with it.
Larger than a balcony, but maybe in the realm of possibility for a roof.
Right now solar panels cost what? $10 per square foot? Have they reached the physical limit of economic production/storage/transportation at $10 per sq ft or can it go lower?
(Let's not get into battery micro-storage economics).
When you consider your other option is a whole house generator which sits idle 99.99% of the time, requires regular maintenance, vs the fact that a solar / battery setup is providing resiliency AND lowering your power bill every month, it seems like solar / bat is a no brainer.
Your money, your choices, but I know which one I'm doing when I get a single family home.
Such as? I've looked into the options, you can either get a whole house generator, which suffers from all the issues I described, or get a solar setup. I suppose if you lived by a stream you might be able to hook up a microturbine for hydro but that's very situational.
Cost is not the highest deciding factor for me. The resiliency renewables grant you would be worth it even at a premium
AI is a very complicated calculator - you give it an input, magic happens, it gives you an output. Really no different, to a layman.
reply