this post was submitted on 21 May 2025
267 points (97.2% liked)

Technology

70215 readers
3470 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
267
We did the math on AI’s energy footprint. Here’s the story you haven’t heard. (www.technologyreview.com)
submitted 1 day ago by kalkulat@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
77 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Absolutely needed: to get high efficiency for this beast ... as it gets better, we'll become too dependent.

"all of this growth is for a new technology that’s still finding its footing, and in many applications—education, medical advice, legal analysis—might be the wrong tool for the job,,,"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jesus_666@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago (2 children)

AI usually got better when people realized it wasn't going to do all it was hyped up for but was useful for a certain set of tasks.

Then it turned from world-changing hotness to super boring tech your washing machine uses to fine-tune its washing program.

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Like the cliché goes: when it works, we don't call it AI anymore.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

The smart move is never calling it "AI" in the first place.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 6 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Unless you're in comp sci, and AI is a field, not a marketing term. And in that case everyone already knows that's not "it".

[–] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

The major thing that killed 1960s/70s AI was the Vietnam War. MIT's CSAIL was funded heavily by DARPA. When public opinion turned against Vietnam and Congress started shutting off funding, DARPA wasn't putting money into CSAIL anymore. Congress didn't create an alternative funding path, so the whole thing dried up.

That lab basically created computing as we know it today. It bore fruit, and many companies owe their success to it. There were plenty of promising lines of research still going on.

[–] IsaamoonKHGDT_6143@lemmy.zip 3 points 22 hours ago

I wish there was an alternate history forum or novel that explores this scenario.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Pretty sure "AI" didn't exist in the 60s/70s either.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 5 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Yes, it did. Most of the basic research came from there. The first section of the book "Hackers" by Steven Levy is a good intro.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 17 minutes ago

The perceptron was created in 1957 and a physical model was built a year later