In 2022, 11.3% of energy was generated by renewables (hydropower, solar, wind, geothermal, bioenergy, wave, and tidal). It's been growing at just under 0.5pp/year since 2007, when it was at 4.4%.
This is primarily driven by wind and solar. Wind power took off around 2000, and in the years since has grown from 5.6TWh to 434.3TWh in 2022. Solar power took off around 2011 and has since grown from 1.82TWh to 205.1TWh. Hydropower remains the #2 renewable in the US, with a noisy-but-nondirectional generation between 200TWh and 350TWh going back to the 60's, but solar appears poised to overtake it by 2024. All other renewables combined are holding steady or slightly dropping at ~75TWh (though anecdotally there may be some large geothermal capacity coming online in the medium-term future that would change this).
Narrowing the focus from all-energy-generation (e.g. including fuel) to specifically electricity, the US is currently generating 22.3% of its electricity from renewables, a number that has been steadily increasing at about 1pp/year since it was 8.4% in 2007.
Naïve extrapolation suggests we're about 75 years out from 100% renewables for electricity, but of course there are reasons to doubt that. For one, we've recently passed the tipping point where renewables are just straightforwardly cheaper than other sources of energy in many circumstances, and improvements in technology and infrastructure will just continue to make this true in more and more cases.
There’s actually every reason to believe we’ll plateau sooner rather than later because solar doesn’t work in the dark and I don’t think there’s a single grid scale battery system installed yet (the famous one in Australia that Tesla made so much news about is an arbitrage play that has nothing to do with solar energy storage). Cost is not the only factor that determines the energy mix.
There’s literally no existence proof yet that solar can supplant fossil fuels so everything is prognostication and articles of faith that to me seem overly optimistic. All existing growth in solar and wind is paired with a growth in fossil fuels too. So the argument is look at other positive data and yet nuclear somehow seems to directly correlate with fossil fuel usage in the grid without having to look at anything. In other words, our energy usage grows faster than solar and wind power plant construction can come online / it’s when solar/wind isn’t available meaning the difference is supplied by fossil fuels.
I've been involved (or at least following) the rationalist and EA communities since the beginning. I call it a cult somewhat tongue in cheek, but it certainly has a lot more cult-like aspects beyond just "pretty concerned about AI risk." I mean, they have a charismatic leader whose unusual ideas about everything from AI risk to sexuality are more or less carbon copied, and practiced in group houses, etc. in some pretty creepy ways.
Literally anyone from the outside would easily be convinced they were pretty much your standard apocalyptic sex cult, just from accurately describing it.
I don't really care if people on EA forums don't all agree with SBF, but his type of thinking is standard if you use utilitarianism to make decisions in the real world, and it leads to some pretty horrific stuff. Consequentialism / utilitarianism are widely accepted in EA, and if you take that to the extreme, it can justify things like this.
I will never cease to wonder at how so many people can blame so much on people trying to take a rigorous approach to world improvement, up to and including "a narcissistic con-man claimed to do trying to do X, and I can imagine a scenario
where someone could justify doing the shitty things he did to justify X, so therefore everyone trying to do X must also suck and be complicit in fraud and assorted sins".
As the other commenter said, this is incorrect. The input was a sequence of legal moves (not even "real" moves - most of the training data was synthetically generated with "generate legal moves" as the only constraint).
Deducing board state from this is extremely non-trivial.
Alternatively, the prior on "this is not possible" is very low because RLHF & Friends have targeted metrics that, inadvertently or not, discourage that outcome.
Dataset as well. In a forum if you don't know the answer you simply don't post. Only people who think they know will post an answer. In a dialogue you see a lot more "I don't know" since there they are expected to respond, but there isn't a lot of dialogue data to be found on the internet compared to open forum data.
Going to be extremely hard to quantify, ransomware peddlers aren't famous for their meticulous public record-keeping. You could try to sift through all the transactions on the public blockchain and try to classify the ransomware ones, but that's going to be challenging at best I imagine.
Overall I'm skeptical of the claim. It could be true, or partially true, but demonstrating that would probably require some work. Alternatively, someone could demonstrate that liquidity came from speculators or some other source, which seems potentially less doable but still not easy.
The best charts I could find on this are from an admittedly-biased think tank, but the sources it's pulling from are well-regarded and neutral:
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/7-reasons-the-u-s-e...
The US also recently passed a massive investment in building out renewable energy.