More and bigger are better


#1

http://www.doeleadershipcomputing.org/faqs/

But, can this beast run cutting edge FreeBSD/Trident OS
And check out the OLCF hardware and software resources&specs pdf.

GNU and old Cray compilers and libraries included - lol

Update:

From the Summit’s Specs at olcf.ornl.gov/summit/

Operating SystemRed Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) version 7.4

So, Trident OS would need just few new drivers and updates to run on that Summit - lol


#2

In few years those giants will be replaced with these


#3

I doubt that they will. Quantum computing will have it’s applications and use cases, but so will traditional computers and I seriously doubt Quantum computing will replace traditional computing. I think it will complement it instead.


#4

If I understand correctly, the current state of quantum computing is generally slower. The big advantage it’s supposed to have is computing multiple cases at a single time due to superpositions.

With certain algorithms it will be faster but not all algorithmic cases will benefit from being computed in parallel like a quantum computer allows. Last I read is that normal things we do every day probably won’t really benefit whereas large scientific calculations and AI will.


#5

It’s always about the specific workload. Anything that has to interact with a human being has more than enough time to do things in the background on a single thread than people realize (hmm. hit a key, put something on a screen)


#6

Yes. Facebook and Google are already using deep learning AI to censor their users, and target ads. I guess that is where it would be useful first. Traditional computers are not doing a good job at it right now. We will also probably see people using it improperly. I can see China using it to censor their people far more efficiently. I can see Russia using it to affect future elections by learning about people and sowing discord far more efficiently. I can see it being used to develop fully autonomous weapons. Those are things that are being tried with traditional computers but do not work properly or as efficiently as they should.


#7

Really? They keep saying they are “enhancing the user experience”
:imp::smiling_imp:


#8

Users? Users are annoying. :rage:

Get rid of them!


#9

In a sense, they are enhancing the user experience. Here is a Link to a CNET article where it show cases how Facebook, Google, and Twitter are using AI to “improve the user experience” they never address the flip side though. In the U.S.A we have freedom of speech, so we can’t be censored but that only applies to the government, there is no rule that says that a private company can’t censor someone on behalf of the government. Google, Twitter, and Facebook can censor what ever they see fit. But it was too much data to censor and keep track of, but with the help of AI it is now doable.


#10

True about the 1A, but things get kind of strange when a private company is acting as a public utility. Very strong arguments to be made that Facebook, Google and Twitter are public utilities and should be treated as such.

You have a TV, you flip through stations. You come across one you don’t like. What do you do? Do you curse and change the channel or call up the TV provider and demand they remove that channel from their lineup? Huge difference. I was raised to shake my head and change the channel. But too many now want to force the company to drop the channel.

@Sergio :rofl::joy::speak_no_evil::thinking:


#11

I don’t agree that something like that should be considered a public utility. Every business should have the right to refuse service to whomever they please even if I don’t agree with them.

People are becoming way too sensitive these days. If you don’t like something they should just not look at it. That’s how it was when I was younger. I don’t doubt someone somewhere has tried the whole calling the cable company to get them to remove something they don’t want on thing. It’s the way people are these days.


#12

Businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone unless that business is such an essential part of life that they must be regulated by the government to make sure they don’t discriminate against anyone. Can you imagine a business shutting off your water because you are a democrat and it goes against their moral code or shutting off your power because you voted for Donald Trump… They are such an essential part of life that they are considered public utilities and therefore regulated by the government. They can’t "Refuse service to whomever they like"there are laws against it.

Now in order for us to consider social networking as a public utility, we would first have to prove that it is an essential part of life. Just like water, sewer, phone, and power. I don’t think we are there yet. Facebook, Twitter, and Google are not an essential part of my life. (except for Android).


#13

Water and electricity should be public utilities as people will die without them. People won’t die without access to Facebook or Twitter and until they do then I don’t see how they can even be thought of as such. The problem I see is over regulation of businesses altogether.

I try to cut Google out of my Android phone as much as possible lol


#14

Telephone used to be Public Utility when there was only Ma Bell. It’s not always about “will people die” it’s also about is there a monopoly or near monopoly in the space.