this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2025
60 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
67242 readers
4220 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Microsoft hasn't signed because unlike the others they're scaling back their datacenter plans... Massively. As in, they've cancelled 1GW of future builds, which is equivalent to the entire compute power of London, AKA the datacenter capital of Europe.
MS has seen the writing on the wall; AI is a nothingburger. And keep in mind, MS basically owns OpenAI, the apparent leaders in the field, and has access to all their tech and IP. If Microsoft are calling bullshit, it's not for a lack of information. They know exactly what Sam Altman is cooking up in secret, and it's clear from their reaction that they know its just a new coat of paint on the same busted crap.
If OpenAI really were quietly working away on AGI, or some magical new version of ChatGPT that solves all its problems, MS would be in the best position to get out ahead and profit from that. They'd be building capacity and power generation like crazy.
This whole bubble is primed to burst.
While I don't have the source handy, I remember it being 1 GW, not 1000. A terrawatt of datacenters would be too much, even for Microsoft.
Sorry, you're correct, that was a typo, I'll edit.
The point of comparison is still correct, about it being equal to the total compute of London. I just wrote the number wrong.