601–610 of 718 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, nonsensical people like EY don’t think it’s nonsensical.
Researches at top AI labs don't consider EY to be a kook even though they may not necessarily agree. EY concepts/terminology appear in Anthropic safety papers. Geoffrey Hinton takes him quite seriously and mentions him in his interviews.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get it either, but it seems to me a bit similar to how the US, if you look at market value of car companies, has utterly crushed Europe and Japan (with China surging ahead of those and maybe threatening the US soon), which to me sounds crazy (I still think of German cars as the top of the bunch). According to Google (AI summary, no idea if it's 100% right but from what I've seen elsewhere it seems right): Top…
>Does the financial markets still expect them to far out-earn Volkswagen and Toyota any time soon, we've been waiting for like a decade already?? These capital heavy industries operate on 30+ year timelines, a decade isn't sufficient time. Revenues are not the end all, be all. Profit and profit margin, along with revenue trends provide a more complete picture. And the most significant factor is that the market does n…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anybody else wanting to get there would have to get permission. The USA, China, and Russia have all successfully tested anti-satellite weapons. If anything, any company that operates a constellation of space-based data centres would need 'permission' to keep them working.
beside of how easy it is to destroy from orbit the anti-satellite missiles coming out from the atmosphere, you're probably missing the fact that any object in orbit is basically a warhead with TNT equivalent of at least 6x its mass. For example the 150 tons payload of just one Starship will have close to 1 kiloton TNT equivalent - 5% of Hiroshima - if dropped from orbit.
Should we ever get to a point where a country is considering shooting down space datacentres, considerations about the impact on Earth is unlikely to stop them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If your radiator is sized for space, it's overkill in an atmosphere. no. Again totally wrong. The 20-40C air surrounding the radiator radiates at the radiator too. This is why a human immediately gets stone cold in space while not in the atmosphere - our body radiates away about 900W and receives 800W+ back from the atmosphere - our internal heat 'generation has to cover only the difference - less than 100W usually.…
> > The planet underneath anything in low orbit also does this, making this argument irrelevant. > no. Again, totally wrong. You've just stated that a human in LEO wouldn't get immediately cold when exposed to space. Just think about it for a second. And after that plug the numbers in thermodynamic calculator. You'll see your error. I already did before previous comment. I was also considering adding "don't forget ev…
My point, i'll repeat, is that while 80C GPU will still radiate while surrounded by 40C air, it will be receiving back the radiation from the 40C air, whereis in space it will radiate the same while receiving practically nothing back from the environment. Both cases obviously is considered when in shadow.
To the comment below:
>False
you wasted my time as you don't seem to understand the basics of thermodynamics.
>and also irrelevant as if you let the space based ones go into shadow you wasted most of the point of going to space.
again, you wasted my time as you don't understand the datacenter construction discussed in the sibling comments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > The planet underneath anything in low orbit also does this, making this argument irrelevant. > no. Again, totally wrong. You've just stated that a human in LEO wouldn't get immediately cold when exposed to space. Just think about it for a second. And after that plug the numbers in thermodynamic calculator. You'll see your error. I already did before previous comment. I was also considering adding "don't forget ev…
many-many words, going sideways and around as you can't go against the basic thermodynamics facts directly. What is your point? My point, i'll repeat, is that while 80C GPU will still radiate while surrounded by 40C air, it will be receiving back the radiation from the 40C air, whereis in space it will radiate the same while receiving practically nothing back from the environment. Both cases obviously is considered w…
I do not waste words, perhaps read them and you will find out.
> My point, i'll repeat, is that while 80C GPU will still radiate while surrounded by 40C air, it will be receiving back the radiation from the 40C air, whereis in space it will radiate the same while receiving practically nothing back from the environment. Both cases obviously is considered when in shadow.
False as demonstrated in the words you didn't see the point of, and also irrelevant as if you let the space based ones go into shadow you wasted most of the point of going to space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anybody else wanting to get there would have to get permission. The USA, China, and Russia have all successfully tested anti-satellite weapons. If anything, any company that operates a constellation of space-based data centres would need 'permission' to keep them working.
beside of how easy it is to destroy from orbit the anti-satellite missiles coming out from the atmosphere, you're probably missing the fact that any object in orbit is basically a warhead with TNT equivalent of at least 6x its mass. For example the 150 tons payload of just one Starship will have close to 1 kiloton TNT equivalent - 5% of Hiroshima - if dropped from orbit.
No state has deployed a kinetic or explosive weapon from orbit to strike a ballistic missile or launch vehicle during ascent.
No operational system exists where satellites are used as strike platforms against Earth-launched rockets in real time.
Russia has done ground-to-orbit anti-satellite missiles though.
Any directed energy system shooting up would be strictly easier than one pointing down, not only because of thermal issues and power supply but also because it's easier to hide ground installations than satellites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The media says it's a war because AI companies are paying them to say it's a war [0] When AGI comes the threat won't be from which primate turned it on, but from how well AGI is aligned with humanity. And when the AGI comes, they won't unleash it to defeat US enemies, they'll first unleash it to make more US workers redundant and boost their stock valuation.
At which point something akin to the French revolution better break out..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We could do with a little less of it IMO. But I have heard plenty from European expats about the entrenched complacency over there. I'm told people looking to improve some system or product run right into a wall of "Why bother?".
The flipside of that is that Europeans generally get way more vacation and free time, and as a consequence, can enjoy life more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> its no accident that the U.S. is the number one economy Sure, it's the largest by GDP, but how much of that GDP is filtering down to the regular people? Are Americans, on average happier and have better life outcomes than other developed nations?
So much that millions of people risk their lives or leave their families to come to this country. By this objective metric, it's literally the best country in the world's history. Is there another country that comes close?