Yes, thank you. Eroi ist the only thing which matters from a hard physics stand point.

That’s just not true.

An energy source with an EROI of 20 but which requires thousands of highly skilled people to tend it is going to lose to an energy source with an EROI of 15 that sits in a field and just works for 30 years.

30 years is generally the guarantee for some minimum output so it's the floor too... could still be outputting 60-70% of original spec for 50 years

Sure but all the residual stuff needs als be considered.

as with every system, yes

That is not how RE works at scale.

It turns out that economic cost of labor and inputs also factors into energy considerations. It's rather soft thinking to ignore them, and leads to very bad conclusions.

Sure labor amount is strongly correlated with EROI

Why use a bad metric when one can use the actually relevant metrics?

I see this from nuclear advocates when they talk about "energy density". Energy density (or EROI) are only relevant insofar as they affect cost. Why not just use cost? (The answer is that cost isn't giving the nuclear advocates the answer they want, so they have to lie and use some substitute metric.)

RE grid doesn't have a "bad EROI". The EROI of renewables is quite acceptable.

Yes, even if you factor in "all the residual".

EROI cannot be bad, since energy is only a small part of the cost of manufacturing. If EROI was unacceptable, then overall cost would be too.

EROI of 5 means 20% all energy goes just to preserving current status. As wind is limited this gives hard limits to what is sustainable in northern countries. These problems completely disappear with nuclear.

This is wrong, Germanies Konvoi where immensely profitable. The greens complained about these as money printing machines.

Treat power plants as public infrastructure. No need for high returns or insurance of every risk.

That’s not a blank check to suddenly behave irresponsibly.

In Italy battery backed solar is going to win from a lifetime cost perspective and it’s only getting worse over the next 50 years here. The solution isn’t government subsidies it’s making nuclear cheap and safe without subsidies at the same time.

Wrong uranium you can easily stock for 10years inadvance

Maybe don't keep it all in one spot, though.

But we have pretty good understanding of the logical foundations and the truth of computer generated math. So having a big library which humans could never produce or fully understand has still a value on its own. It is just another level of abstraction.

Soon AI mathematics will be 10x or 100x or 1000x more productive than humans in the proofing theorems business. Mathematics of old style is dead, they should develop ideas how to deal with that as a math community.

If a human doesn't understand the proof, it might be useful for certain kinds of engineering, but not really that useful for mathematics except as an existence test.

I don't known, can't we just also indirectly observe the wide platonic landscape of mathematics through observing AI results which humanity could not produce in a 1,000,000 years.

I imagine this will become one kind of branch of mathematics.

> But solving problems is only a tool and proxy for achieving the primary goal of conceptual understanding and insight. Forgetting this in the world of AI may turn the tool against the primary goal.

No one is paying mathematicians to develop a conceptual understanding. If the signal for who is “winning” math in academia disappears mathematicians will have a big problem

This is true. There can still be some funding for recreational aesthetic mathematics, like you can get some funding for various art projects or philisophy, literature, poetry, general humanities and community-building projects or sports funding or things like that. But currently many mathematicians are funded by the public purse with the understanding that this contributes to science and engineering and technological development at some point. I'm not saying that intellectual pursuits for the sake of human mental satisfaction is not worth funding in a society. The question is the amount of people needed. Tax payers pay for it. You have to tell them why, and why so many people need to be funded to do that. Many people have various hobbies they enjoy. But generally they don't get government money for doing it as the general rule. Maybe in a post-scarcity world.

Given what a know about the 2008 financial crisis, wouldn't an AI analysis in the years before that crisis of the real state funds helped to understand the risk of them better and avoid the big exposure.

Probably not. On the contrary, it would probably just amplify the mood.

The problem wasn't the analysis, given it was found out before it happened. The problem was politics, and as usual pushing the system to its limits and beyond.

I'd say it was more to do with how incentives lined up among different actors.

There's always risk somewhere in a financial system.

if people use it to make money, does this not mean that they providing some sort of service which is valued and hence it improves lifes?!

In an ideal world, that would be true, but the actual world is very far from that. As an extreme example, AI is very useful to automate scamming people.

No, money and value have been decorrelated for a long time. At least 5 years and arguably since Reagan.

Like it was so correlated back in 1600? Under the Romans? But perhaps you just mean that the increased financialization of the US economy means that the percentage of economic wealth devoted to actions without value is increasing? Sort of a modern trajectory to 1789 with the foppish nobles not realizing how much everyone else can get along without them?

There are a multitude of methods of obtaining money that do not benefit society.

Proofing open math conjectures