Dr. Dabbles @ drdabbles @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

543

Joined

2 yr. ago

As in solid state has lower range, lower cycle life, and higher cost. Quite an amazing hill to be attempting to defend. lmfao

As for "so many" manufacturers, there aren't many. And they've been working on this research project for two decades. Are you also a proponent of perpetual motion generators because people "have been working on them" for so long? It's long term R&D because you have to hedge your bets. The battery tech itself still sucks.

So you're more than a decade behind on LiB tech. Got it. Now it makes sense why you think this boondoggle is even worth discussing.

Cool. That's not the only combustible material in a cell. And since a solid state battery only changes the electrolyte, everything else is unchanged. Meaning they are not significantly safer, because several types of liquid electrolyte aren't flammable. Crucially, this is also a reason why solid state batteries are pointless for the foreseeable future, and only bring negatives to the table.

That isn't what's being discussed. We're comparing cells to cells, not ICE to BEV.

Hmm. You don't know much about US elections, I see.

The electrolyte isn't the only flammable material in lithium cells.

Not even a press release, but an FT post. Which is worth less than a press release somehow.

Not at all.

Right, nearing mass production is what we call it when their PR department announced just a couple weeks ago that they're delaying the project until 2025, and they've been working on it for a decade.

These posts need to stop. Their only purpose is to lead gullible people on while the company desperately wishes for a magical fix to all their problems.

Maybe you should read what I wrote. Try answering my questions too. Or maybe you can't and the snark is a deflection? Yeah, I'm guessing that's it.

I guess you’re just a big anti AI person and that’s fine.

Nope, I live in reality and work in the hardware industry. I presume you're an ML specialist of some sort?

I understand the limitations of the tech

It really doesn't seem like you do based on what you've said in this thread.

especially in its earliest stages when it’s the most unreliable

Yes, in the 1950s it was indeed unreliable. And here in 2023 it's still unreliable. Again, based solely on what you've said in this thread I don't think you understand the history, the current state of the art, or the future of any of this work. Let alone limitations.

But this tech is here and it’s not going anywhere.

...until a significantly more power efficient development comes along which will make current methods look foolish. Then it's going away instantly. Also "this tech" has evolved so dramatically over the past 60-something years that even addressing it as "this tech" completely misses the point, and saying it isn't going anywhere entirely ignores the developments we've had.

Which tech specifically isn't going anywhere? The hardware? The software? The networks themselves? Using activation functions as a concept in software?

Just casting all of these unavoidable truths aside

You don't understand what you're talking about, so I don't think you're in a position to tell me what is a truth or not.

No doubt you're a specialist, though, so I look forward to you describing in detail which "tech" you think isn't going anywhere and how it's going to develop in the future.

they’re just sort of using parts of what you say

It's called quoting, and I tend to not respond to parts I either agree with or don't find important enough to respond to.

it isn’t whether or not this is coming

It's ABSOLUTELY whether it's coming, because what's available is a laughable parlor trick. And thus far there's zero evidence that anything reasonable is possible within decades. People outside the industry have been duped by con men pumping investment funds for quick cash, and that's about the best thing that ML has produced.

I won’t be surprised when I hear about students using this as an approach to study

Yeah this has already happened, you're like 5 years late to the party.

None of that changes the fact that it’s here and we now must deal with it.

If you consider it "here" or even "ai" then I have news for you. And you're going to want to sit down, because so far the only thing it does is cost more per user, burn insane amounts of energy during a climate catastrophe, and trick gullible people into thinking it's doing anything more than guessing the next word (in the case of LLM).

I personally believe we can use this effectively

Lots of people believe things that are wrong.

It can be right

And this is the crux of the problem. I can be. It also can be wrong. And a lay person has zero ability to tell which is which.

I’d encourage any other educated healthcare professional to run their own tests and I’d love to hear their results.

Fortunately this has been done in clinical settings already. IBM's been sued countless times, and everybody implementing any ML system for research or detection purposes has found that a human is required to verify all results. Which begs the question, why try to force this BS on customers? And then you realize these businesses want to make more money by firing people, regardless of the impact on the consumer.

Guarantee for me that it explains everything correctly. I'll wait.

"Health providers are trying to pocket more money and don't care about patient outcomes" is probably a much more correct headline. AI in medical fields has had some astounding failures.

Lots of people still being taught that clack skin is literally thicker, and black people experience less pain.

Not only demographic but a whole different model that very few companies use unless their content breaks YT guidelines. That's the punchline.

I know, the joke is nobody's switching and Vimeo can't win.

I sincerely wish them all the worst.

Vimeo wringing their hands thinking this is their chance.