I never even thought it was that deep (idk if in other countries ppl go over it in school or something, I first heard of it online) so I never really understood how people are relating it to any economic system. All it’s saying to me is that one bad actor can be enough to ruin something for everyone - as far as I’m concerned it’s just prisoners’ dilemma in a larger group. So we need some way of enforcing that, if a shared ressource is vulnerable to singular bad actors (which isn’t all of them, e.g. some people abusing welfare doesn’t suddenly skyrocket costs), it won’t be abused.

Edit: just realized I forgot whether tragedy of the commons was about some few fucking up the pasture for everyone, or everyone slightly overusing it. The latter is ofc a bit different, but “ah I can cheat the system a little, I need it after all” isn’t an uncommon sentiment. That one usually just means you need a bit of a buffer, though, because most people won’t grossly abuse something. (And of course, it’s still quite independent of economic systems - regional software pricing for example is ultimately a capitalist thing to sell more, and yet would fall under this as it’s usually possible to get these prices from other regions.)

Yes, but that doesn’t make the comparison to all countries with over 500 000 people meaningful. It’s specifically that part that seems dishonest to me.

Though I suppose it is also possible that the full data has a few states where incarceration rates are more around the global average, which then would actually have a point in including other countries. Those weren’t part of the image posted here though (which was also dropped without context as to why it was posted)

Edit: yknow it occured to me i could click the link and yea, some states are indeed more normal, though still kinda high. That’s really the interesting part far more than the top of the list.

Yes, but that is not how the graph is framed. It’s framed as “look, if we put US states on a graph with other countries, they have such a high incarceration rate that there are almost no countries even on the graph!”

If it was honest and just trying to compare the incarceration rate of US states amongst each other (and the national average) it wouldn’t be titled “[…] in U.S. states and all countries […]”. It’s a clearly manipulative title.

The reason that a graph with this title could maybe make a point if it was absolute numbers is that most U.S. states’ population is less than most countries, so if individual states were still high on such a graph, that would be shocking.

They are, and I agree it’s misleading. It’s implying that it’s somehow shocking that the individual states of the county with the highest incarceration rate in the world also have a high incarceration rate. If it was absolute numbers, it would maybe make a point. As it is, it’s stating the extremely obvious and framing it as “look, it’s even worse than you thought”.

Oh damn. Very good article btw.

According to numbers floating around online, thiat would mean one llama query is around as expensive as 10 google searches. And it’s likely that those costs will increase further.

It still seems like the biggest factor here is the scale of adaptation. Unfortunately the total energy costs of AI might even scale exponentially since the more complex the queries get, the better the responses will likely be. And that will further drive adaptation.

This pace is so clearly unsustainable it’s horrifying, and while it was obvious to some degree, it seems it’s worse than I thought.

Using it, not all that energy intensive (one llm use is roughly the same as 3 pre-ai-bullshit google searches iirc). Training it, very energy intensive.

Yes it would but we haven’t even replaced all our previous needs with renewables so it aint helping.