zlacker

[return to "xAI joins SpaceX"]
1. gok+h4[view] [source] 2026-02-02 22:06:22
>>g-mork+(OP)
> it is possible to put 500 to 1000 TW/year of AI satellites into deep space, meaningfully ascend the Kardashev scale and harness a non-trivial percentage of the Sun’s power

We currently make around 1 TW of photovoltaic cells per year, globally. The proposal here is to launch that much to space every 9 hours, complete with attached computers, continuously, from the moon.

edit: Also, this would capture a very trivial percentage of the Sun's power. A few trillionths per year.

◧◩
2. rainsf+RA[view] [source] 2026-02-03 00:24:23
>>gok+h4
We also shouldn't overlook the fact that the proposal entirely glosses over the implication of the alternative benefits we might realize if humanity achieved the incredible engineering and technical capacity necessary to make this version of space AI happen.

Think about it. Elon conjures up a vision of the future where we've managed to increase our solar cell manufacturing capacity by two whole orders of magnitude and have the space launch capability for all of it along with tons and tons of other stuff and the best he comes up with is...GPUs in orbit?

This is essentially the superhero gadget technology problem, where comic books and movies gloss over the the civilization changing implications of some technology the hero invents to punch bad guys harder. Don't get me wrong, the idea of orbiting data centers is kind of cool if we can pull it off. But being able to pull if off implies an ability to do a lot more interesting things. The problem is that this is both wildly overambitious and somehow incredibly myopic at the same time.

◧◩◪
3. keepam+5W[view] [source] 2026-02-03 02:44:39
>>rainsf+RA
All right, so how is it that all you geniuses out here are totally right about this, but all the dullards at SpaceX and XAI, who have accomplished nothing compared to you lot, are somehow wrong about what they do every day?

I know being right without responsibility feels amazing but results are a brutal filter.

◧◩◪◨
4. advent+DY[view] [source] 2026-02-03 03:08:10
>>keepam+5W
There's no reason to think the brilliant minds at SpaceX are supportive of focusing their mission in any manner-what-so-ever on datacenters in space. You can't call on their genius as the supportive argument accordingly.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. keepam+O31[view] [source] 2026-02-03 03:51:52
>>advent+DY
I disagree, I think the idea of a cabal of reactionary comrades inside SpaceX is activist fantasy. I think SpaceX only does what it does with full committment of its people: mind, body, spirit.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. nkozyr+0e1[view] [source] 2026-02-03 05:28:50
>>keepam+O31
I think there's a scenario where that's true: one where the head of your company is collaborative and deferential to expertise.

There's another scenario, though: one where the head of your company is a bull in a China shop, whose successes have come almost exclusively through a Barnum-esque scheme of cascading bravado and marketing genius without much expertise, but a marvelous ability to sell any idea purely via unearned gravitas.

The former is less sexy: I've compiled loads of talented people, and we're going to solve very hard problems, even some that seem impossible.

The latter is very sexy: I'm a genius and we're going to accomplish the impossible in one year via sheer force of my grand will. And even if it doesn't actually happen, I'll sell you on the next vision.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. keepam+uh1[view] [source] 2026-02-03 06:02:07
>>nkozyr+0e1
It seems like you’re ascribing to Elon some kind of magic, where you feel he’s breaking the rules of what should be allowed in order to achieve success. Is it impossible you simply don’t understand how what he does works?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. nkozyr+R62[view] [source] 2026-02-03 12:39:29
>>keepam+uh1
I think you may have misread my comment, because no.
[go to top]