Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Eric and Wendy Schmidt Observatory System

schmidtsciences.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 64 posts

Re: The Eric and Wendy Schmidt Observatory System

#51

Post by BurningFrog »

palmotea wrote: post #41
BurningFrog wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the vast majority of non pacifists, that is not a bad thing.

> For the vast majority of non pacifists, that is not a bad thing. Speak for yourself. I'm a non-pacifist, and I think "autonomous A.I. weapons" are a nightmare.

Sure, all lethal weapons are a horrific nightmare on some level.

But you also have to keep in mind that China, Russia and Hamas will gladly develop them anyway. Until we've figured out the worldwide peace thing, we need to keep running the race, awful as it is.

Re: The Eric and Wendy Schmidt Observatory System

#52

Post by benburleson »

WD-42 wrote: post #26
benburleson wrote: post #19

Interesting. Wayne Rosing (Silicon Valley pioneer and early engineering lead at Google) has been working on a global telescope project for a long time now also. https://lco.global/

Ben you still have code running here.

Ha, thanks for letting me know! I hope it's not causing too many problems out there :-)

Re: The Eric and Wendy Schmidt Observatory System

#53

Post by defrost »

BurningFrog wrote: post #36
niemandhier wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the website: “The Lazuli Space Observatory is a 3-meter–class space-based astronomical facility designed for rapid-response observations and precision astrophysics across optical and near-infrared wavelengths.” And we wall should be happy he doesn’t want to put a swarm of micro telescopes into the sky to mimic his approach for the ground based telescopes. The last thing astronomy needs is even more satellite con…

Satellites are only visible when it's dark on the ground but sunlight at their orbit. Which is for a short time around sunset and sunrise. During the actual night sky, you don't see satellites. As civilization moves into space, it will have to be visible! Imagine if cities were only allowed it they were invisible. Let's not be this stupid! That said, I'm sure a lot can be done to minimize reflections using paint and…

> During the actual night sky, you don't see satellites.

Cool.

So what's the beef radio astronomers, the SKA people et al, have with SpaceX all about then?

Any chance you haven't thought this through at all?

Re: The Eric and Wendy Schmidt Observatory System

#54

Post by BurningFrog »

defrost wrote: post #53
BurningFrog wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Satellites are only visible when it's dark on the ground but sunlight at their orbit. Which is for a short time around sunset and sunrise. During the actual night sky, you don't see satellites. As civilization moves into space, it will have to be visible! Imagine if cities were only allowed it they were invisible. Let's not be this stupid! That said, I'm sure a lot can be done to minimize reflections using paint and…

> During the actual night sky, you don't see satellites. Cool. So what's the beef radio astronomers, the SKA people et al, have with SpaceX all about then? Any chance you haven't thought this through at all?

Come on, at least find out what the "beef" you support is about!

Re: The Eric and Wendy Schmidt Observatory System

#55

Post by defrost »

BurningFrog wrote: post #54
defrost wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> During the actual night sky, you don't see satellites. Cool. So what's the beef radio astronomers, the SKA people et al, have with SpaceX all about then? Any chance you haven't thought this through at all?

Come on, at least find out what the "beef" you support is about!

Not the visible spectrum, that's for sure.

Re: The Eric and Wendy Schmidt Observatory System

#56

Post by ojo-rojo »

tectonic wrote: post #45

The level of negativity in these comments is surprising. We can certainly debate whether billionaires should exist at all, but given that they do, here’s one who’s putting his money towards advancing cutting edge science instead of buying a third mega yacht. I am strongly in favor.

I agree with you. I clicked into this hoping to hear what new things we could learn or discover with the new observatories. Commenting on the more positive and informative side would be a better use of time and energy I think :)

Re: The Eric and Wendy Schmidt Observatory System

#57

Post by arunabha »

BurningFrog wrote: post #32
uSoldering wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eric Schmidt is, in his own words, an arms dealer now and is driving the R&D of autonomous A.I. weapons.

For the vast majority of non pacifists, that is not a bad thing.

Apparently, none of them have seen any of the Terminator movies.

Re: The Eric and Wendy Schmidt Observatory System

#58

Post by palmotea »

BurningFrog wrote: post #51
palmotea wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For the vast majority of non pacifists, that is not a bad thing. Speak for yourself. I'm a non-pacifist, and I think "autonomous A.I. weapons" are a nightmare.

Sure, all lethal weapons are a horrific nightmare on some level. But you also have to keep in mind that China, Russia and Hamas will gladly develop them anyway. Until we've figured out the worldwide peace thing, we need to keep running the race, awful as it is.

But AI weapons aren't horrific in some way common to "all lethal weapons." They have that and more.

AI weapons are specially horrific in the way they have potential put massive and specific lethal power under the total control of a small number of people, in a way (like all AI) that basically cuts most of humanity out of the future (or at the very least puts them under a boot where no escape is imaginable).

In some ways, they're even worse than nuclear weapons. A nuclear attack is an event, and if you survive there's some chance of escape. Station 100,000 fully automated drones around a city with orders to kill anything that moves, and the entire population will be dead in a couple months (anyone who tries to escape = dead, everyone else sees that and stays inside out of fear until they starve).

Manpower and attention limitations have been and important (and sometimes only) limit on the worst of humanity, and AI is poised to remove those limitations.

Re: The Eric and Wendy Schmidt Observatory System

#59

Post by BurningFrog »

defrost wrote: post #55
BurningFrog wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on, at least find out what the "beef" you support is about!

Not the visible spectrum, that's for sure.

Oh, that's an interesting angle. Satellites emitting radiation would really be a 24/7 problem.

Ultimately, astronomical observatories should be in space anyway.

Re: The Eric and Wendy Schmidt Observatory System

#60

Post by BurningFrog »

palmotea wrote: post #58
BurningFrog wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, all lethal weapons are a horrific nightmare on some level. But you also have to keep in mind that China, Russia and Hamas will gladly develop them anyway. Until we've figured out the worldwide peace thing, we need to keep running the race, awful as it is.

But AI weapons aren't horrific in some way common to "all lethal weapons." They have that and more . AI weapons are specially horrific in the way they have potential put massive and specific lethal power under the total control of a small number of people, in a way (like all AI) that basically cuts most of humanity out of the future (or at the very least puts them under a boot where no escape is imaginable). In some…

I think that's exaggerated.

But even if it's true, I don't see why letting China and Russia etc be the only ones having these weapons is good?

Post reply on HN