You’re talking about manipulated/malicious/intentfully steered hallucination but the parent is referring to trained emergent hallucination (even if sycophantic). These are two different things and both can occur, but the latter is what’s being tongue-in-cheek referred to by the professor.
Not arguing against your overall point, but Texas is a well-known lesson in failed power grid management, market design, and policy - which in combination is the driving force behind the current economic energy opportunities.
I say this as someone in the energy industry who operates many renewable assets across the U.S., some in Texas, and participates in the markets. Texas is a power nightmare, worst in the country. Everyone in Texas is investing in desperate immediate need and toa lesser degree, future potential, but that potential isn’t here yet and the cost of wholesale power spikes to egregious levels regularly.
You are stating a common misconception. That being that solar owners should be paying for anything other than the cost to push power into the distribution grid. The grid fees solar owners pay account for that. They should not be paid for supplying power at wholesale rates bc that assumes a wholesale power flow model, which is not physically applicable to solar owners who support the local distribution grid. If you look at the portion of the grid that a solar owner interacts with, how their power flows through it, the efficiencies of supplying that power locally are clear and should be at retail + distribution fees only. It’s the solar owners that are actually (marginally) subsidizing the non-solar owners in reality.
The utilities and ISO’s do not argue against this. They want to eliminate NEM 2.0 in favor of NEM 3.0 bc the difference in rates are to then be provided by alternative incentives such as battery pay-for-performance programs.
Disclaimer: I own an energy company that does C&I and Residential energy aggregation and participates in wholesale market energy supply and incentive programs.
I read the parent’s comment as arguing that the existence of profits implies exploitation of workers in the quoted instance (p perhaps broadly in England at the time) and that there is some similarity with DeepSeek. No hard-line assertions, just suggested similarities.
Distributed energy resources eliminate a large portion of the transmission cost, leaving only the distribution grid in an idealized/future-state scenario (as I assume you’re talking about). In the summer, you lower the solar output so as not to overload the s distribution grid.
Also, batteries come in several long-term flavors. Thermal sand batteries are able to provide many months of energy storage today. A mid-term future will surely include even longer term storage as we develop improved storage technology. LiPo batteries are a bridge storage solution.
Regressive in that solar programs are not inflated, but do require distribution upgrades to realize their efficiency advantages over centralized power transmission. These distribution upgrades are costly to IOUs because they cut into their margins when the efficiency of distributed generation is considered.
Paying distributed generation export at retail rates or higher (DR, etc) makes plenty of sense because there are significant load, resiliency, and efficiency advantages to homeowners who are supposed to be the ones to benefit most from the grid.
He’s saying Texas is hot for humans, which is objectively true. One’s willingness to tolerate it is subjective, but that’s not the point here. Don’t take it so personally.
You are uninformed. ERCOT is heavily influenced (“owned”) by Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) and market makers that are profit seeking entities. This is true of all ISOs for all intents and purposes. It is the primary reason why the U.S. grid is slow to innovate/change, e.g., implementing distributed generation participation in wholesale markets, etc.
> If you have to verify the details of the work you outsource
Yes, they have to verify. Verification is necessary whether or not the component is sourced through a supplier or in-house. Verification happens after the sourcing step. And yes, you are criminally liable in the supplier case if your supplier commits fraud and you knew about it, as is the implication here.
That’s very subjective and case dependent. I use local models most often myself with great utility and advocate for giving my companies the choice of using either local models or commercial services/APIs (ChatGPT, GPT-4 API, some Llama derivative, etc.) based on preference. I do not personally find there to be a large gap between the capabilities of commercial models and the fine-tuned 70b or Mixtral models. On the whole, individuals in my companies are mixed in their opinions enough for there to not be any clear consensus on which model/API is best objectively — seems highly preference and task based. This is anecdotal (though the population size is not small), but I think qualitative anec-data is the best we have to judge comparatively for now.
I agree scoreboards are not a highly accurate ranking of model capabilities for a variety of reasons.
They are opening themselves up to massive liability even with “fine print” — this is meaningful and should not be disregarded. Just because there’s some super indem clause in their customer agreement doesn’t mean the courts will rule in its favor and not strike it out.
Agreed. Every time I’ve used it or been in a Tesla as a passenger with FSD engaged, human intervention has been required several times each trip to avoid accidents, harm to pedestrians, or moving violations. It’s frankly embarrassing to use and terrifying to imagine the masses relying on it in any way in its current form.
Fair enough. Indeed my only point was that lithium-sulfur has production potential, as does solid-state, etc. and that’s where the industry interest originates.