Meta Signs $10 Billion Cloud Deal With Google (reuters.com) 14
Google has signed a six-year cloud computing deal with Meta worth over $10 billion, making it the second major partnership after a recent agreement with OpenAI. The deal will see Meta rely on Google Cloud's infrastructure to support its massive AI data center buildout, as the company ramps up capital spending into the tens of billions. The Information (paywalled) first reported the deal.
This is one product we can hope will appear here.. (Score:4, Interesting)
https://killedbygoogle.com/ [killedbygoogle.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly lamenting the lack of humor for the rich target, but the lack of interest on Slashdot is also interesting in a negative way. Remember when $10 billion used to be a lot of money? But "thoroughly modern money" has become an imaginary joke in its own right... I hope they got paid in crypto?
But on the big topic, I think the joke is sick. Everything links back to AI and there is no form of "playing gawd" that can be worse than trying to create one. Just about finished with The Coming Wave by Mustafa Sul
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly, I read your comment and had to re-read it to try to understand. "Gravity" on slashdot? What does that even mean, and why should we want it? The joke is sick? What joke?
But I can comment on the book you cited. Here's the thing about books...they are written with the hope that they will sell. Book-writing is a money-making endeavor. To sell books, authors look for drama, because drama sells. ANY book that tells you that the world is heading for an apocalypse, OR nirvana, is selling you something. Real
Re: (Score:2)
Have to disagree with you on the book and also on your predictions about the future. But you haven't read the book and I'm probably not going to live long enough to have to worry about it. Or at least I can hope so?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't need to read the book. ANY book that predicts dystopia, is exaggerating the negative and discounting human ingenuity. ANY book that predicts utopia, is exaggerating the positive and discounting human imperfections. Doesn't matter the subject.
History is full of bright spots and dark spots. But in the long run, humans have been on a general trajectory for the better, for thousands of years. There is no reason to think that THIS time, THIS technology, will be the ONE technology that does us in.
Re: (Score:2)
Such proud ignorance. You must be American.
I actually sort of agree with you, but only to a point. I think the long-term trend has been upward. But it's an average, and there have always been oscillations. The problem is that the oscillations are becoming bigger and more frequent and more rapid, too. One oscillation that goes big enough on the negative side can lead to the "game over" state.
I actually think some folks did read the book quite seriously. Unfortunately they were bad actors who took his suggest
Re: (Score:2)
So taking lessons from history, is arrogance? No, I'd say the opposite, that a book that claims that THIS TIME will be different from all of history, is arrogant.
I do agree that the oscillations are becoming more frequent and more rapid. But bugger? Not sure about that. The transition from blacksmiths to factories was big, and put a whole lot of people out of work. But the mechanization of farm work over 100 years did not put a lot of people out of work, despite eliminating 95% of farm jobs. There never was
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I can come up with an example you can understand?
The financial hiccup of 2008 was large, but the government was still able to save all the "too big to fail" banks (except for the "liberal" one).
What happens when the next crash is much bigger but there is no government with sufficient credibility to save all the "too big to fail" virtual banks and whatever?
However mostly I try to see things from a geological time perspective. Fold in the Fermi Paradox, and... 'Nuff said?
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when the next crash is much bigger but there is no government with sufficient credibility to save all the "too big to fail" virtual banks and whatever?
You mean, like the granddaddy of all market crashes, in 1929? Like that one? It met all your scenario points above.
It was bad, yes. It led to unemployment rates around 25%, and lasted for about 10 years. A lot of people had to move in with relatives, and a lot had to get food at soup kitchens.
As bad as that was, in historical terms, 10 years is a blink of an eye. Thing did recover, and now it's just a bad memory of people older than us. If AI causes a crash (and that's a big IF), we can predict, learning fr
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is NOT what I meant and I am no longer able to credit you for good faith. Just another builder of convenient straw men. Lot of that going around these years.
Re: (Score:2)
No bad faith was intended. I genuinely believe it to be a solid argument.
Do YOU have a solid counter-argument? What did you mean, exactly, that I apparently misinterpreted?
Re: (Score:2)
NAK
Re: (Score:2)
Got it, so you don't. That's what I thought. Now who is responding in bad faith...
Re: (Score:2)
Z^-1