Shout out my guy @rmcentush on the great piece around why it's not as simple as ordering a bunch of equipment and 'plugging it in' for data centers - grid or BTM. This is helpful for laymen and experts, both! Visuals are great.
Lucky to see early version of the piece and Ryan spent a ton of time distilling A LOT of info into a clean, punchy piece. Worth your time.
- texas paused data center development for generally good reasons
- some developers are behaving badly/not transparently; it's also a nightmare for grid operators
- texas has a some ideas on how to accelerate interconnection
- behind the meter is real and not going away, but every campus will eventually connect to the grid
- lots of opportunity for OEMs, but worth being careful not to get caught in boom/bust cycle
- flexibility help make existing infra more efficient, but we still need more wires/gen. near term, i'm bullish gas, solar, and batteries
- it would be great to have AI companies pay for grid upgrades that we need anyway. generational opportunity to prepare for an abundant future without spreading costs across ratepayers or playing catch up later
- everything about this is complicated and will take a broad consensus to truly unlock rapid deployment
"At the end of 2024, Texas' grid operator had 63 GW of large new customers in its queue. By this June, that figure reached 474 GW, more than five times record peak demand."
"Then Texas hit pause."
"Developers routinely spam requests across several sites, and many are speculative builds with no customer yet."
"Planners can't tell which are real, and they don't want ratepayers covering upgrades built for projects that never show up."
"Fully connecting a large data center can take 5 to 10 years... Idle GPUs cost far more than the electricity to run them, so speed matters most... That's why developers are planning to bring their own power on site."
"Full reliability for these power islands is very, very hard, but some labs and hyperscalers have shown that, forced to choose between reliability and speed, they'll pick speed."
"Every site I'm aware of intends to connect to the grid as soon as it can, chiefly because on-site power almost always costs more."
"AI companies have pledged to pay their way, and most would rather connect to the grid than avoid it. It seems ideal for everyone that we let them do so instead of driving that spending into private islands."
"Texas created the energy fast lane first; now it has the opportunity to show us a better one, and I expect it will. Power is where America finds out whether it can still build."
as I’ve been buying stuff for my new place, I’ve struggled to define what I actually like. “local” or “craft” stuff on etsy gets close, but it’s often just cover for what is actually pretty bad quality.
took a wine class recently and remembered the word “terroir.” sounds pretentious, but captures an idea pretty well: things that are genuinely shaped by where and who they come from.
not local for the sake of it, more human than mere “nonfungibility”, etc. feels important in coming age of radical abundance.
man in weathered baseball hat scrolls third-tier sports gambling app for the entire flight. UX is bad I can’t tell if he’s losing. orders 1, 2, 3 cans of red wine. he’s probably losing. groupchats named things like “boys of summer” and “the gathering”. half the messages are sport gifs. home screen cluttered; uses search to find facebook. he loves arizona. i can hear his music through my airpods. he doesn’t know what METR is
I hear roughly 3 reasons people keep working at AI labs despite believing in ~10% extinction risk:
1) Techno-determinism: Someone will build ASI no matter what, and I can do it better & more safely than China/OpenAI/etc
2) Consequentialism: ASI might kill us, but it also might produce utopia/immortality/superabundance, so it's a +EV bet
3) Self-interest: I am personally having fun & getting rich working on cool tech with friends. I don't think about the macro stuff.
Notably, none of this is "I'm hyping up the risk for marketing reasons." People believe what they say, while being capable of a lot of internal dissonance / compartmentalization / self-justification.
(Personally, I think the public is better served by AI researchers talking about & creating consensus for the specific safety solutions — regulatory or otherwise — they want vs. vagueposting about extinction.)