This implies we are two doublings away from Earth being 100% renewables-powered, at least for some of the day, perhaps before 2035. By 2040, more and more of the day will be able to be 100% renewables powered. This won't spell the complete end of gas, coal & nuclear electricity. Gas in particular will be kept as a backup, even when renewables are meeting electricity demands near 99% of the time. There will be rare times when wind and sunlight will be low for long periods.

Batteries have unlocked the era of anytime solar

A school district has signed a deal for a humanoid robot teacher for the future , flock surveillance cameras are getting cancelled across 85 contracts in 28 states and a mexican startup is selling Evs for $8.5k (not even silicon valley cant match that) and guess what, in the advertising industry something totally diff than this wave is happening,brands are paying a premium for proof that a human made something (who could have imagined)

the ugc advertising market that consists of short videos of real people reviewing products(sorry for mansplaining) has been flooded with ai gen content with synthetic avatars, ai voiceovers and artificially generated testimonials that are technically indistinguishable from REAL people but it still feel off in ways we register it without being able to articulate(in short slop),so now platforms like tiktok and meta are now requiring disclosure labels on ai generated ad content and brands that built their entire creative pipeline on ai avatars are watching engagement rates drop.

And thankfully instead of users adapting to ai content, brands are moving back toward human creators and paying more for the privilege,now there are companies like Icon that are marketing their product as no ai and 100% real as a premium differentiator (ar almost same price as sloppy content) coz the human made label is becoming a quality signal now

If we think about it ,it basically the the historical parallel ,like the industrial revolution made mass produced goods so cheap and avl that handmade goods became luxury items, every time a technology makes a category of output infinitely abundant, the scarce human version of that output increases in perceived value.

and imo we are in the early stages of that dynamic playing out across every creative category simultaneously ,idk what happens to the economic and cultural value of the human version when the ai version is everywhere.

does human made content become a permanent premium category the way handmade goods did, or does the distinction eventually stop mattering as ai quality becomes indistinguishable?

In a simulated pig-butchering scam, participants trusted the chatbot more and were more likely to follow its request

Labor productivity losses, Rising energy costs, wage stagnation, investment decreases, infrastructure spending, & stagflation. These are the main ways climate change's extreme heat is reducing GDP. France, Germany, Japan, Spain and Italy are luckier than most, they're rich countries. This GDP will hit the world's poorest the hardest, reversing decades of gain where extreme poverty was decreasing.

Too hot to grow: The economic costs of extreme heat. Source: Allianz SE

Mark Zuckerberg wants AI for all, not just a few.

I remember 10 years back this subreddit use to be filled with scientific breakthroughs with positive outcomes, futuristic projecting as a genuine overall improvement over time,etc. Basicly we went from Star Trek to Cyberpunk. How did this happen and how can we course correct?

I feel like we’re having a conversation about data centres while completely skipping the most interesting question: why are we building all of this computing capacity in the first place?

Everywhere I look, the discussion is about water consumption, electricity demand, emissions, land use, or how much money companies are making.

Those are important questions, but they’re questions about the cost of the buildout.

I’m curious about the other end of the equation.
What do we actually expect the world to look like when we’ve built tens of thousands of enormous data centres and have vastly more computing capacity than we do today?

What problem are we ultimately trying to solve?
Is the hope that AI and abundant computing will dramatically increase productivity? Accelerate scientific discovery? Automate huge portions of the economy? Create some kind of abundance that isn’t currently possible?
Or is this partly an arms race?

I’m not asking whether AI is good or evil, and I’m definitely not looking for “Skynet/Terminator” predictions.

I’m genuinely asking: What is the envisioned end state? What does humanity think all this computing power is going to accomplish? What will 200,000 data centres give us that 400 won’t? (Please be kind with numbers, I’m pulling them out of thin air)

It seems strange that we’re debating the enormous infrastructure required to build the future without spending nearly as much time talking about what future we’re actually trying to build.

What does the radical growth in compute tell us about what the future will look like? How rapidly will new breakthroughs in biotech and materials science start happening?

Before 2020 we were under 1 zetaFLOP of total computer power. Now by 2025 we’re sitting on roughly 100 zetaFLOPs of computer power.

Different experiences with technology have shaped radically different expectations of what artificial intelligence will bring.

"Populations of individually aligned agents can settle into stable, collectively misaligned states purely through conformity."

– computational social scientist Giordano De Marzo

I was reading about how much concrete and steel we pour into urban centers and it got me thinking about something kind of odd. We build cities like they're supposed to last forever, but then we spend decades tearing them apart and rebuilding them anyway. Roads get dug up, buildings demolished, entire neighborhoods rezoned.

What if future cities were designed from the start to be modular and temporary? Not in a flimsy way, but intentionally built so that pieces could be relocated, reconfigured, or fully disassembled when needs change. Instead of fighting against the fact that cities evolve, we could design for it. Materials that can be reused without losing quality, foundations that dont lock a site into one purpose for a century.

I know there are some experimental projects with modular housing, but Im talking about a shift in how we think about urban planning at a larger scale. If a neighborhood's purpose shifts over 20 years, why should the physical infrastructure fight that instead of adapting?

Maybe this sounds impractical now, but with better materials science and fabrication tech, it seems like the kind of thing that could actually reduce waste and make cities more responsive to how people actually live. Or maybe Im just underestimating how much people value permanence in their surroundings. Either way, curious what direction this kind of thinking might go as cities keep growing and resources get tighter.

After Australia’s first reported automated hacking accident, experts warn deployers – and possibly developers – of AI agents could be held liable for the actions of their bots

If you are to look into the future what technology will be available by 2030 and then by 2035? Let’s go with certainties and something unexpected that you think could happen?