Glorious.

Make the physics of this make sense to me, please.

The physics aren't the problem, though. You CAN cool the processors provided you have large enough radiators, a really good system for the coolant flow, and hardware that's fine operating continuously at around 100C or above.

That's basically an engineering challenge more than anything else. Also keep in mind that one of the reasons the ISS for example requires rather large radiators, is that humans typically don't enjoy temperatures above 40C for prolonged periods of time.

Silicon chips on the other can tolerate much higher operating temperatures just fine and even short spikes around 100C can be acceptable for some hardware.

The real challenge is getting launch cost down and securing the rights to pollute polar orbits and frequency bands. Sure, there's plenty of room up there in orbit, but much of that room is not fit for purpose in the context of orbital data centres. Frequency bands for up- and downlinks are also often ignored in the discussion.

Basically I don't see the current issues with the concept in the required engineering or physics - that's solvable in the near term.

I find it much more difficult to believe that there's a way hundreds of thousands of satellites can share the same orbit (i.e. polar orbit in a quite "narrow" band of distances from the surface) without causing major issues.

Same goes for frequency bands, as it wouldn't be just one US company doing this, but dozens from around the world, each with hundreds or thousands of sats and everyone needs a share of the available communication frequencies.

Then there's the logistics of getting the satellites into orbit in the first place. Not just the launch cost, the logistics! Fuel, NOTAMS, maritime exclusion zones, launch licences, etc. The concept would necessitate increasing current launch rates by at least an order of magnitude and cost aside, the logistics and regulatory frameworks aren't ready for this.

Looks like you pasted in the wrong input box. This was a comment form, not google or an llm.

Advertising is an irritation. AI is a threat.

Advertising has the appearance of representing an on-going revenue source for an increasing number of devices used in our daily lives by way of surveillance and creation of a picture of an individuals habits and psychology in order to manipulate said psychology to induce the individual to spend more money on literally worthless shit.

That is a threat to the fundamental stability of society.

The dire state most western democracies have found themselves in is a direct consequence of the work big tech did over the last 15+ years.

AI is concerning in some aspects, yes, but the loss of a shared reality has nothing to do with that, and is even more scary.

Advertising is surveillance, and surveillance is a threat.

Correct, but advertising was a better disguise for surveillance. AI goes well beyond surveillance and many evil use cases are now obvious to more people.

Are you inferring that AI is not a surveillance tool?

I don’t think that’s what he meant. They both are surveillance tools. He’s just upset only one of those is making people advertise their leave in protest.

fair

Only if you are cognitively challenged.

It’s funny how the [very real] thing that normalizes the exploitation of user data, enables “reel casinos,” suffocates creators and replaces them with “influencers,” etc. is compared with the [still very abstract] danger of AI.

Even before big money was on the table, people didn’t blink an eye at starting to work for Google/Facebook, “solving fun tasks.”

To a guy who knows nothing about nuclear physics, an atomic bomb is very abstract until it blows up and becomes very concrete. Should we wait until it explodes to consider the risk?

Comparison between LLMs and atomic weapons just mystifies the issue.

I wrote about this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49685036

Is there anything specific you, as an LLM equivalent of a nuclear physicist (if that’s a fair comparison), can highlight in terms of these imminent dangers?

(OP here) FWIW I despise the addictiveness, er engagement optimization that Google and others do. I have said so inside and outside the company many, many times. I would never have agreed to work on that stuff myself. One of the hobby projects I would like to work on is exploring how to use personal AI to beat those algorithms.

I respect the argument for not working for a company that does addictiveness work anywhere, even if you don't work on it yourself. But that's not where I drew the line.

Also FWIW I disagree the danger of AI is abstract. A lot is happening right now, in education for example.

Thanks for sharing this.

I actually work in education and can share the following first-hand: the things we now build, the ways we now educate, and all the opportunities for reaching out to students are beautiful. I foresee that _many_ people will cut corners now, but I believe that, in the end, we will get a new generation of education that is personal and humane.

I don't mean this as preaching some shiny future that I hope will magically arrive. I already see these things happening. And I also see all the ways people misuse the tools or take shortcuts.

Educators with good intentions, skills, and powerful tools will always beat ignorance and laziness relying on those same tools.

> how to use personal AI to beat those algorithms

+1000

So it is ok to believe (even despise) it is bad but as long as I don't work directly on it but my super big paycheck gets funded by it, all good! Cheers!!

Google (unlike Meta say) makes a lot of money from a lot of things that have nothing to do with the addictiveness optimization.

> Advertising is an irritation

I think it's worse than that. Or at least, the products that have been built because of advertising are worse than that. Instagram/TikTok/Facebook are all ultimately just surfaces to serve ads, but they've wormed their way into their users' consciousness in fairly insidious ways

Please let me know when it starts

Advertising turned brains of entire generation (or maybe a few) into mush.

All intellectual, psych and social scores are in free fall since introduction of ad-supported attention grabbing internet.

AI is theorethical threat. Advertising is a constant detriment to our brains, societies and culture.

If AI can mitigate a fraction of the damage that ads do it will have massive positive impact.

We live in times where everyone can pick their own flavor of apocalypse to be scared of. Ads are leading us into Idiocracy since ~2004 and made huge progress towards it.

Google and Meta's wealth came at the cost of civilization getting sucked dry of its attention and mental capacity.

I read this as the year of "Infernal" tools.

> Baffling how voters fail to recognize

Bread and circuses, mate

"Bread and circuses" refers to a public free grain dole and free entertainment events in Ancient Rome. Precious little of that in the US right now, except for food benefits whose recipients probably on balance do not support the current guy.

I’d say they turned the whole administration into the circus as they’re running it like a reality tv show

..or a crappy casino. (further precedents)

But they’re also less likely to vote for a third party or otherwise upend things,

because they’re not hungry.

Bread and circuses -> Hot Pockets and Netflix

not just cost-per-hour of the crew, but also rest schedules. A more economical flight-path is all well and good, but it's useless if it means that the crew will breach their permitted duty hours.

It's carmine all the way down.

nothing rouge either, I suspect.

if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

I feel like potential suffocation is not what I'd be most concerned about if I were in an atmosphere with high concentrations of gaseous ammonia.