• SethranKada@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    10 hours ago

    We’re very close. I think it was only a few years ago that we first got more energy back than we put in. That’s a big milestone.

    • Xaphanos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      At the risk of getting roughed up in the replies…

      I think AI will be the missing key. The ability to micromanage millions of inputs at once and respond with control corrections in microseconds can push this over the top. I’ve read of some progress on this front already.

      • m_‮f@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        I don’t think it’ll be LLMs (which is what a lot of people jump to when you mention “AI”), they have much higher latencies than microseconds. It will be AI of some sort, but probably won’t be considered AI due to the AI effect:

        The AI effect is the discounting of the behavior of an artificial intelligence program as not “real” intelligence.

        The author Pamela McCorduck writes: “It’s part of the history of the field of artificial intelligence that every time somebody figured out how to make a computer do something—play good checkers, solve simple but relatively informal problems—there was a chorus of critics to say, ‘that’s not thinking’.”

        Researcher Rodney Brooks stated: “Every time we figure out a piece of it, it stops being magical; we say, ‘Oh, that’s just a computation.’”

        LLMs might be useful for researchers diving down a particular research/experiment rabbit hole.

        • otacon239@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Machine Learning in this case instead of LLMs. Fields like microbiology have been seeing waves of discoveries with the latest ML approaches.