zlacker

>>g-mork+(OP)
> The basic math is that launching a million tons per year of satellites generating 100 kW of compute power per ton would add 100 gigawatts of AI compute capacity annually, with no ongoing operational or maintenance needs. Ultimately, there is a path to launching 1 TW/year from Earth.

> My estimate is that within 2 to 3 years, the lowest cost way to generate AI compute will be in space.

This is so obviously false. For one thing, in what fantasy world would the ongoing operational and maintenance needs be 0?

>>rybosw+u5
Here is my main question: Musk is on record as being concerned about runaway "evil AI." I used to write that off as sci-fi thinking. For one thing, just unplug it.

So, let's accept that Musk's concern of evil runaway AI is a real problem. In that case, is there anything more concerning than a distributed solar powered orbital platform for AI inference?

Elon Musk appears to be his own nemesis.

>>consum+te
Aside from anything about Elon Musk, here’s an interesting video response to the “just unplug it” argument on the Compuerphile channel: https://youtu.be/3TYT1QfdfsM

>>circui+Eg
Ha, I figured that might be the video prior to clicking it. I am a long time fan.

Agreed, when I wrote "just unplug it," this counterargument was present in my mind, but nobody likes a wall of text.

However, my original point was that a distributed solar powered orbital inference platform is even worse! Think about how hard it would be to practically take out Starlink... it's really hard.

Now.. >1M nodes of a neural net in the sky? Why would someone who lives as a god, the richest man in the world, the only person capable of doing this thanks to his control of SpaceX... do the literal worst thing possible?

>>consum+pj
That'd easily take a few LEO detonated fragmentation bombs to trigger a cascading LEO shrapnel field.

>>defros+Gk
It's a lot harder than taking out some terrestrial power lines.

>>consum+Uk
Sure, it'd take obital launch capabilities to lift ... how many bags of metal scrap and explosives?

>>defros+ho
tone: I don't really understand orbital mechanics, but I do understand geopolitics a bit.

1. China is very concerned about Starlink-like constellations. They want their own, but mostly they want to be able to destroy competitors. That is really hard.

2. Many countries have single ASAT capabilities. Where one projectile can hit one satellite. However, this is basically shoot a bullet, with a bullet, on different trajectories.

3. > Sure, it'd take orbital launch capabilities to lift ... how many bags of metal scrap and explosives?

If I understand orbital mechanics... those clouds of chaff would need to oppose the same orbit, otherwise it is a gentle approach. In the non-aligned orbit, it's another bullet hitting a bullet scenarios as in 2, but with a birdshot shotgun.

My entire point is that constellations in LEO take hundreds of Falcon 9's worth of mass to orbit and delta-v to destroy them, as in-orbit grenades which approach gently. This IS REALLY HARD, as far as mass to orbit, all at once! If you blow up some group of Starlink, that chaff cloud will just keep in orbit on the same axis. It will not keep blowing up other Starlinks.

The gentle grenade approach was possibly tested by the CCP here:

>>46820992