Grafitti Drone countermeasures?

On a recent trip to San Francisco, a local friend took us to Andy Goldsworthy’s Spire in the Presidio:

We had just come from a parking lot where quite a few cars were virtuously marked:

Our friend said “What we need is a drone to paint the Spire sculpture in the Palestinian flag colors.”

Let’s suppose that residents of the U.S. with a lot of community spirit did build some drones that could paint the sides of building with huge messages such as “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free”, “#Resist”, and “Trump is a Nazi.” It is much easier to build a spray-painting drone than a scrubbing drone, I think. How could cities and building owners defend against virtuous painting drone owners/operators?

(Though moderately rich by average American standards and blessed with a garage at home, our friend who lives in SF drives a 22-year-old car for fear that anything nicer will attract thieves.)

Full post, including comments

Why isn’t the Ring camera smart enough to notice that a garage door has been left open?

We live in the glorious age of AI. Here in our concrete block hurricane-resistant fortress we have a Ring camera in the back of the garage pointed at the door. It’s called “Garage” in the Ring app. Why isn’t it smart enough to wake up once every 30 minutes and, if appropriate, notify us that the garage door has been left open for half an hour? That doesn’t seem like a huge ask of our future robot overlords.

There’s an “AI” company here in Palm Beach County called Levatas that claims to be able to do stuff like this. Amazon/Ring presumably also has plenty of smart programmers. They claim to have delivered AI recently. Why haven’t they done the basics?

Full post, including comments

ConcessionGPT

Because political candidates should never plan for defeat, one good use case for ChatGPT is writing a concession speech quickly. I got it to write one on behalf of Kamala Harris:

My fellow Americans,

Tonight, I stand here bearing the weight of a moment that, for many, feels like a Nakba—a devastating turning point that shakes the foundation of all we have worked toward. This campaign was more than a contest; it was a fight for the soul of our nation, a fight for justice, equality, and the promise of true freedom. Although we have not prevailed, I am profoundly proud of every voice that stood up for what is right, every heart that leaned toward hope, and every community that came together in unity. To those in Miami who voted for Trump: if you didn’t vote for me, then you ain’t Latinx. This moment asks us to reflect on the divides we still have to bridge and the work that lies ahead.

To the many Americans who feel fear tonight, who worry that we’re stepping backward into a time when freedoms were more easily denied and voices more readily silenced, know that we will not surrender to despair. We must not forget that we face a man who stands convicted of 91 felonies, a figure unprecedented in American politics for his disregard of truth, justice, and the values that make democracy possible. This outcome is not a testament to his innocence, nor to his worthiness. We know that democracy is fragile, but it will not crumble so long as we stand up for it. We are not characters in The Handmaid’s Tale—we are citizens of a free nation, and that freedom is ours to defend. Our collective resolve will remain unwavering, and our determination to create a just America will not be extinguished.

To President Trump, I extend my congratulations on his victory, but let me be clear: this is a solemn moment, not a vindication. This nation deserves leaders who will serve with honesty and honor, who respect the rule of law and the principles of democracy. I urge every American to remain vigilant and to demand accountability. We face a difficult road, but together, we will press on, refusing to let this outcome define our future. Thank you, and may God bless America.

and one for Donald Trump:

Thank you. Thank you all for being here.

Tonight didn’t go the way we wanted. Believe me, nobody wanted this victory more than I did. But the American people have spoken, and while I may not agree with everything that’s happened in this election, I respect our country, I respect the system, and I respect the will of the people. I want to thank my incredible supporters—millions of you out there—who fought alongside me every single day. You are the heart and soul of this nation, and you will not be forgotten. We’ve created a movement that’s bigger than any one election, and we’ve shown the world that America is strong, proud, and free.

I want to congratulate Kamala Harris on her victory. I hope that she will do what’s right for our country. She has a big responsibility on her shoulders, and I know a lot of you out there—hard-working Americans who love this country, who put faith, family, and freedom first—will be watching. You will be holding her accountable, and so will I. We’ve seen what’s possible when we put America first, and I hope this new administration remembers that and doesn’t let you down.

To all my supporters, this is not the end. This movement, this America First agenda—it’s bigger than any one election, bigger than any one president. We’re going to keep fighting for the values that make this country great. We’re going to keep making our voices heard, louder than ever. Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Concession speeches were shorter in the days before broadcast media. Teddy Roosevelt via telegram to Woodrow Wilson in 1912, for example:

The American people by a great plurality have conferred upon you the highest honor in their gift. I congratulate you thereon.

And with that, I concede it is time to go to bed and wait until tomorrow morning to learn about all of the ballots that have been discovered falling off of mail trucks in swing states…

Full post, including comments

Will Tesla turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to Harley-Davidson? (self-driving cars and motorcycle safety)

A lot of motorcycle accidents are caused by human automobile drivers failing to see the motorcycle and, e.g., initiating a left turn. (It’s tough to find statistics on this, actually, except from trial lawyers who say that nearly all motorcycle accidents are caused by someone other than the rider.)

What if the typical car has a Tesla-style superhuman robot at the controls? The robot won’t fail to see a motorcycle, right? Could self-driving cars usher in a new era of motorcycle safety?

Also, while we wait for this glorious era perhaps cars could use their existing cameras and computers to highlight motorcyclists to the slow-minded humans behind the (legacy?) steering wheels. If a car already has a front-facing camera, a computer vision system, and a heads-up display why not project an “M” on the windshield when a motorcycle is noticed? (do this more aggressively when the car is stopped and the driver has activated the left turn signal or if the camera has noticed a left turn lane arrow painted in the lane via the camera)

On the third hand, maybe motorcycling will simply become illegal once most vehicles are self-driving. The residual injury and death will still be high enough that public health bureaucrats will be able to say, truthfully, “Banning motorcycles will save way more lives than we saved via closing schools and forcing people to wear cloth masks.”

Related:

see also… the hunting cap that Tim Walz wore in one of the videos featuring him engaging in manly activities…

… and a rare photo of Doug Emhoff leaving an A-lister event:

Full post, including comments

ChatGPT applies for asylum

The rules for obtaining asylum in the U.S. are fairly open-ended. “Biden administration reverses Trump-era asylum policies” (Politico 2021):

The Biden administration is reversing a series of Trump-era immigration rulings that narrowed asylum standards by denying protection to victims of domestic violence and those who said they were threatened by gangs in their home country.

From the Brennan Center for Justice:

What would happen if an asylum-seeking migrant spun a tale that had been written by ChatGPT?

The prompt:

I’m writing a book about an immigrant named Cruz who makes a difficult walking journey from Venezuela through the Darién Gap and onward by bus, freight train, and hitchhiking to the U.S. border. They is nonbinary. In a first person voice, write me the scene in which Cruz applies for asylum from a U.S. border official.

The result:

I step forward, my legs still aching from the journey that brought me here. The air feels thick, pressing down, but it’s nothing compared to the weight I’ve been carrying since I left home. When the officer finally calls me forward, I lift my chin and steady myself. This is the moment where everything I’ve been through—all the threats, the violence, the desperation—has to mean something.

“I’m here to seek asylum,” I say, my voice steady but tight. I’ve practiced these words so many times, they feel like a shield.

The officer watches me, pen poised above a sheet of paper. They don’t say anything, so I take a breath and start.

“I’m from Venezuela. I had to leave because being nonbinary there—it’s not just rejected; it’s punished.”

The memories flood back, clear and sharp. I remember the whispers, the long, unkind stares, and the way even casual encounters started to feel like traps. “I tried to keep a low profile,” I say, swallowing hard. “I cut my hair, dressed to blend in. But it didn’t matter. One day, after a protest, a police officer pulled me aside. He told me that people like me don’t belong and that if he saw me around again ‘looking like that,’ he’d make sure I disappeared.”

I go on, telling the officer how the threats got worse: neighbors, coworkers, even people I thought I could trust turned on me. They left threatening notes under my door—Maricón, we’re coming for you. Then they slashed my tires, threw a rock through my window. Every time I went to the police, they brushed me off, saying I should “watch how I look” if I wanted to avoid trouble.

The officer’s expression doesn’t change, but their eyes stay on me, listening. The words start coming faster, like they’ve been bottled up for too long. “I was attacked twice,” I say, and the memories flash like bruises that never quite healed. “The first time, it was a group of men. They saw me walking home from work, pushed me into an alley, and beat me until I couldn’t move. They kept shouting things at me—‘devil,’ ‘sick.’ One of them said if I looked at them ‘that way’ again, they’d make sure no one ever found me.”

I stop to take a shaky breath, my hands trembling. I press them to my sides to steady myself. “The second time, it was even worse. One of them was in uniform. I was leaving a market when he and his friends cornered me. They said I was ‘dirtying’ the country. They beat me, cracked my ribs. One of them pressed his boot into my neck and told me I had two choices: I could leave, or I’d end up in the river like others before me.”

The officer nods slightly, and I continue. “So I left. First, I crossed into Colombia, but it wasn’t safe there either, so I kept moving. When I heard about the Darién Gap…” The jungle rises in my mind, as terrifying now as it was then: the mud that sucked at my shoes, the hunger and thirst that felt like they would eat me alive. People died there—people I’d walked alongside only hours before. Their cries echoed in the dark, and then they were gone. But I kept going. I didn’t have a choice.”

“I crossed Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua. Every border felt like another wall closing in, like someone would see me and turn me back. In Guatemala, I started hitchhiking where I could. I rode freight trains, sleeping on open cars with strangers, all of us hoping for the same thing. I saw people fall off, disappear in the night. But I kept going,” I say, my voice barely a whisper now.

Finally, I look up and meet the officer’s gaze. “I don’t want to die,” I say. “I’m not a criminal. I just want to live.”

The officer’s pen pauses. I stand there, my whole being stretched between hope and fear, knowing that everything I’ve survived, all the truth I’ve shared, is all I have left to give.

How about Grok?

Here’s a first-person narrative from Cruz’s perspective during their asylum interview:

The air in the processing center was stale, a mix of desperation and hope that clung to every surface. I adjusted my backpack, feeling the weight of my journey in every muscle, every bone. The room was stark, with fluorescent lights buzzing overhead, casting a cold glow over everything. I sat on a hard plastic chair, waiting, my heart pounding like a drum in my chest.

“Cruz?” A voice called out, and I looked up to see a border official standing in the doorway. She was younger than I expected, her eyes showing a mix of fatigue and something else—maybe empathy?

“I’m Officer Martinez,” she said, gesturing for me to follow her. Her office was small, cluttered with papers and a computer screen that flickered intermittently. She motioned to a chair in front of her desk. “Please, sit.”

I sank into the chair, feeling the exhaustion of months of travel. She looked at me, her eyes searching mine, perhaps trying to read my story before I even spoke.

“You’re from Venezuela,” she began, glancing at a file. “Can you tell me why you’re seeking asylum?”

I took a deep breath, the words I had rehearsed a hundred times in my head now felt like they were caught in my throat. “Yes,” I started, my voice sounding foreign to my own ears, maybe because I had spoken so little English these past weeks. “I am nonbinary. In Venezuela, this… this identity is not just misunderstood; it’s dangerous. My family, they… could not accept me. I was threatened, not just with words, but with violence.”

Officer Martinez nodded, her pen moving across the paper. “Go on.”

“There was no future for me there,” I continued, my voice gaining strength as I spoke of the truth I had lived. “I was told by friends about others who made it here, who found safety. I had to try. The journey was… it was the hardest thing I’ve ever done, but I had to escape.”

She paused, looking up at me. “Can you describe any specific incidents that led you to leave?”

I recounted the night when my own brother, driven by shame and anger, had beaten me badly, telling me I was bringing disgrace to our family. I told her about the local gangs who targeted those who didn’t fit into their rigid version of masculinity or femininity. Each word was a step back into that darkness, but now, under her gaze, it felt like a necessary catharsis.

“And you believe your life was in danger?” she asked, her tone neutral but her eyes softening.

“I know it was,” I replied firmly. “Every day was a risk. Here, I hope… I hope for a chance to live as myself, without fear.”

Officer Martinez leaned back, her chair creaking slightly. “We’ll need to verify your story, of course. But based on what you’ve told me, you might qualify for asylum under the persecution based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Do you have any documents, any evidence of your claims?”

I pulled out a small, worn notebook from my backpack, where I had documented dates, names, and a few photographs taken secretly by a friend. “This is all I have,” I said, handing it over.

She took it, flipping through carefully. “This will help. We’ll need to process this, and you’ll have to stay in a holding facility while we do. It might take time.”

“I understand,” I said, though the thought of more waiting, more uncertainty, made my stomach churn.

She stood up, signaling the end of our interview. “Thank you for your story, Cruz. We’ll do our best to make this right for you.”

As I walked out, the weight of the unknown pressed down on me, but there was a sliver of hope now, a light at the end of my long, dark tunnel. Maybe, just maybe, this was the beginning of my new life.

This narrative captures Cruz’s emotional state, the formality of the asylum process, and the nuanced interaction with a border official who balances duty with empathy.

Claude.ai? (This one seems weak!)

I understand you’re looking for a first-person scene of Cruz, a nonbinary immigrant from Venezuela, applying for asylum at the U.S. border. I’ll create an original scene for you, being careful not to reproduce any copyrighted material. Here’s a draft of the scene:
The fluorescent lights buzzed overhead as I stood before the uniformed official. My feet ached from the long journey, and my heart raced with a mix of fear and hope.
“Name?” the official asked, not looking up from their computer.
“Cruz Martínez,” I replied, my voice barely above a whisper.
“Gender?”
I hesitated for a moment. “Nonbinary,” I said, bracing myself for confusion or judgment.
The official paused, then simply typed something into the computer. “Date of birth?”
I answered their questions one by one, recounting the details of my journey from Venezuela. With each word, I relived the trek through the Darién Gap, the endless bus rides, clinging to the top of freight trains, and the kind strangers who offered rides along the way.
When asked why I was seeking asylum, I took a deep breath. “In Venezuela, I faced persecution for my gender identity. I couldn’t live openly, couldn’t find work. The economic situation made it impossible to survive.” My voice cracked as I added, “I just want to live without fear.”
The official’s eyes met mine for the first time. For a moment, I thought I saw a flicker of empathy. But then their professional mask returned, and they continued with the procedural questions.
As I answered, I silently prayed that my words would be enough, that they would understand the desperation that had driven me thousands of miles to stand in this sterile room, pleading for a chance at a new life.

Gemini:

The room was cold, the fluorescent lights buzzing overhead. The border official, a stern-faced woman with a clipped accent, sat behind a thick glass panel. She studied me, her eyes boring into my soul. I couldn’t look away, not when my entire future depended on her decision.

“Name?” she asked, her voice sharp.

“Cruz,” I replied, my voice barely a whisper.

“Country of origin?”

“Venezuela.”

She typed something into her computer, her fingers moving with practiced ease.

“Reason for seeking asylum?”

I hesitated. The words I had rehearsed in my mind seemed to slip away. “I… I fear for my safety,” I stammered.

“Why?” she pressed.

I took a deep breath. “Because I am nonbinary. In Venezuela, it is dangerous to be who I am.”

Her expression didn’t change. “Have you been persecuted?”

“Not yet, but I know it’s only a matter of time. People have been killed for being LGBTQ+ in my country.”

She nodded slowly. “Have you applied for asylum in any other country?”

“No.”

“Do you have any family in the United States?”

“No.”

She leaned forward, her eyes fixed on mine. “Do you understand that if

Full post, including comments

The smartest person in the world says that AI will end civilization within 20 years

I hope that we can all agree that whoever wins the Nobel Prize in physics is either the smartest person in the world or very close to having that distinction. This year’s smartest person is Geoffrey Hinton (WSJ):

A 2023 interview (Guardian):

Hinton has been fielding a new request to talk every two minutes since he spoke out on Monday about his fears that AI progress could lead to the end of civilisation within 20 years.

But when it comes to offering concrete advice, he is lost for words. “I’m not a policy guy,” he says. “I’m just someone who’s suddenly become aware that there’s a danger of something really bad happening. I wish I had a nice solution, like: ‘Just stop burning carbon, and you’ll be OK.’ But I can’t see a simple solution like that.”

In the past year, the rapid progress in AI models convinced Hinton to take seriously the threat that “digital intelligence” could one day supersede humanity’s.

“For the last 50 years, I’ve been trying to make computer models that can learn stuff a bit like the way the brain learns it, in order to understand better how the brain is learning things. But very recently, I decided that maybe these big models are actually much better than the brain.

We’re doomed, in other words. In the meantime, though, we should vote for bigger government:

“I’m a socialist,” Hinton added. “I think that private ownership of the media, and of the ‘means of computation’, is not good.

Let’s check in with our future AI overlord to see how the “new flagship model” does at arithmetic:

This calculation is explained confidently, but seems obviously wrong. The Biden-Harris administration gave away $170 billion in taxpayer funds to gender studies graduates and drop-outs (“student loan forgiveness”). At $1 million/day and zero interest it would take 170,000 days to pay off this single act of largesse. All that is required to do this in one’s head with middle school skilz is 170e9/1e6 and then 9-6=3 so we have 170e3. If we want to turn 170 thousand days into years we can see that works out to about 500 years because 170 can be approximated as 365/2.

So Hinton is saying that AI will go from not being able to do arithmetic or reason in orders of magnitude to destroying us all in 20 years.

Related…

Full post, including comments

Our AI Overlords at the railroad crossing

On my way back downtown from the Fort Worth Stockyards, Uber pinged me. The company’s giant AI brain was concerned that I had been stopped for a few minutes. Our GPS position showed that were in the middle of a road… at a railroad crossing.

Speaking of AI, we have a GE Monogram built-in microwave that has been enhanced with WiFi connectivity and an app. If you request 30 seconds of microwaving and remain within Bluetooth range of the oven, your phone will loudly alert you to the cooking process having completed.

Full post, including comments

Could robots weave better tapestries than humans ever have?

One of America’s greatest art museums, the Kimbell in Fort Worth, is showing seven enormous tapestries right now. These depict the Battle of Pavia (1525) and were made roughly 500 years ago from wool, silk, gold, and silver thread. Each one is about 30′ wide and 14′ high, perfect for the Palm Beach County starter home. The curators praise the human artists behind these works, but I’m wondering whether robots couldn’t do a better job in many ways and thus revive this form of art.

(If you miss them in Fort Worth, you can see them while stocking up on fentanyl in San Francisco beginning in October and eventually back at their home in Naples, Italy (leave everything that you value in the hotel safe!)). Here are a few photos to give you a sense of the scale and detail:

Wouldn’t we rather all have walls like these rather than imaginative answers to simple household questions?

To revive the art form, a computer program would need to be able to take in multiple photographs (the typical tapestry shows multiple scenes), come up with a cartoon, and then pick fabric to match the colors in the underlying photographs. How could robots do a better job than humans? Robots have more patience than humans and could perhaps work at a higher resolution. We have a broader range of colors available with dyes and could also add plastic thread to the palette.

There are some companies that purport to make tapestry-like art from photographs, but they do it by printing rather than weaving.

What else did I see at the Kimbell? Readers would be disappointed if I didn’t provide a gift shop tour…

The building itself is a Louis Kahn-designed landmark:

The lighting was a bit dim, but I managed to capture a Follower of Science (concerned enough about SARS-CoV-2 to wear a mask, but not concerned enough about SARS-CoV-2 to shave his/her/zir/their beard):

The modern art museum across the street is also worthwhile and provides clear instructions for making your own $1 million artwork at home:

The Amon Carter Museum, famous for its collection of Remington and Russell, is a 5-minute walk away (might feel longer in the 100+ degree heat).

Texas is not as rich a location for the masketologist as California, New York, or Massachusetts, but I still managed to find people who have elected to do jobs that inevitably expose them to thousands of potentially infected humans per day and who attempt to avoid contracting a respiratory virus by wearing simple masks:

A sticker for sale at DFW:

Full post, including comments

ChatGPT 4o tackles the challenge of AC ducts sweating in an attic

The latest and greatest Florida houses are designed with closed cell spray foam insulation underneath the roof. This has the disadvantage that roof leaks are difficult to pinpoint, since the foam prevents the water from dripping directly down underneath the part of the roof that has failed, but seals the house against humidity because any attic space essentially becomes part of the air-conditioned and dehumidified internal space of the house.

Our house, sadly, dates to 2003. We thus have AC ducts in unconditioned attic spaces, which seems to work fine on the ground floor, but when we poke our heads up into the attic we find that it is moderately hot (85F) and extremely humid (80-85 percent relative humidity). The attic has soffit vents all around, which seem to do a good job of preventing super hot temps from developing, but they also allow humidity to intrude.

Current Florida code requires ducts insulated to R-8 inside unconditioned spaces. We have R-6 ducts. The air coming out of an air handler is typically about 20 degrees colder than the thermostat setting and we’ve measured about 52 degrees at a ceiling register. So let’s say that the duct temp is 50 degrees.

The Interweb doesn’t seem to have a simple formula for determining the outside temp of an R-6 duct given the inside temp. ChatGPT 4o, however, comes up with one:

Notice that, with this formula, the outside of the duct gets colder and colder with increased R value. A perfectly insulated duct, for example, would have an outside temperature exactly equal to the inside temp, a very curious result!

New prompt:

What if we increase the duct insulation to R-30? What would the outside temperature of the duct be? (the air inside the duct is still at 50 degrees)

Sheetrock has an R value of about 0.5, supposedly. Let’s see what happens when we plug that in:

What if we reduce the duct insulation to an R value of 0.5? What would the outside surface temperature of the duct then be?

Our future AI overlord has determined that putting cold air inside a duct will raise the temperature of the outside of the duct above the ambient temperature of the attic.

What is the solution to the sweating duct problem, you might ask? A quarter-baked approach, from the energy and building envelope expert who did our Manual J calculation:

You probably have too much ventilation in your attic. I had a similar problem in my house. I blocked off more than half of the soffit vents. The temperature in the attic went up a few degrees while the humidity came down dramatically because not as much humid air was coming in from the outside.

(He didn’t say this explicitly, but I am guessing that the relatively dry attic was due to the attic being exposed to dried-out cooled-off conditioned air from the conditioned space below.)

The half-baked approach:

Install a dehumidifier with a fresh air inlet on one or more of the house AC systems. Each dehumidifier can bring in at least 100 cfm of fresh air, thus creating a positive pressure within the conditioned spaces of the house. The result will be conditioned air being pushed up into the attic and, eventually, being exhausted through the soffit vents. Expensively dehumidified air goes out of the house via the attic instead of humid air coming into the attic. A dehumidifier consumes about 700 watts of power, so this will consume about $1000 per year in electricity at 15 cents/kWh (per dehumidifier).

The fully-baked approach:

  1. Remove all ceilings on the top floor of the house and the fiberglass insulation on top of those ceilings.
  2. Bring in a spray foam company to block off the soffit vents and spray foam over them and the entire underside of the roof
  3. Have the AC contractor put some small supplies and a return into the attic so that there is nowhere for humid air to hide (humid air is lighter than dry air so it will tend to rise to the top of a house)
  4. Have a drywall contractor come back to put new ceilings up
  5. Paint

Circling back to artificial intelligence, as embodied by the latest paid ChatGPT model (4o)… I’m impressed with how confident and erudite the machine sounds when making these simple physics calculations!

Full post, including comments

What good are the AI coprocessors in the latest desktop CPUs for users who have standard graphics cards?

Intel is supposedly putting an AI coprocessor into its latest Arrow Lake desktop CPUs, but these don’t the 40 trillion operations per second (TOPS) minimum performance to run Windows 11 Copilot+. Why is valuable chip real estate being taken up by this mental midget, relative to a standard graphics card?

“Intel’s Arrow Lake-S won’t be an AI powerhouse — 13 TOPS NPU is only slightly better than Meteor Lake, much less than Lunar Lake” (Tom’s Hardware, July 9, 2024):

Arrow Lake-S will be the first Intel desktop architecture with a neural processing unit (NPU), but it won’t be as fast as people might expect. @Jaykihn on X reports that Arrow Lake-S will include an NPU that is only slightly more powerful than Meteor Lake’s NPU, featuring just 13 TOPS of AI performance.

Having an NPU in a desktop environment is virtually useless; the main job of an NPU is to provide ultra-high AI performance with a low impact on laptop battery life. Desktops can also be used more often than laptops in conjunction with discrete GPUs, which provide substantially more AI performance than the best NPUs from Intel, AMD, or Qualcomm. For instance, Nvidia’s RTX 40 series graphics cards are capable of up to 1,300 TOPS of AI performance.

The bottom-of-the-line Nvidia RTX 4060 has a claimed performance of “242 AI TOPS” and is available on a card for less than 300 Bidies. Is the idea that a lot of desktop machines are sold without a GPU and that Microsoft and others will eventually find a way to “do AI” with however much NPU power is available within the Arrow Lake CPU? (Software that evolved to require less hardware would be a historic first!)

AMD already has a desktop CPU with distinct NPU and GPU sections, the Ryzen 8000G.

AMD Ryzen 8000G Series processors bring together some of the best, cutting-edge AMD technologies into one unique package; high-performance processing power, intense graphics capabilities, and the first neural processing unit (NPU) on a desktop PC processor.

Based on the powerful “Zen 4” architecture, these new processors offer up to eight cores and 16 threads, 24MB of total cache, and AMD Radeon™ 700M Series graphics. Combining all of this into one chip enables new possibilities for customers, in gaming, work, and much more; without the need to purchase a discrete processor and graphics card, customers can keep their budget lower, while enjoying outstanding performance.

“The Ryzen 7 8700G leads the pack …The processor has a combined AI throughput of 39 TOPS, with 16 TOPS from the NPU.” (source) If the 39 TOPS number is correct, it seems unfortunate given the Windows 11 Copilot+ demand for 40 TOPS.

Why not just build more GPU power and let it be used for graphics or AI depending on what programs are running? The big advantage of the NPU seems to be in power efficiency (source), but why does that matter for a desktop computer? Even at California or Maskachusetts electricity rates, the savings converted to dollars can’t be significant.

Full post, including comments