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. Rover2+LG[view] [source] 2026-02-03 01:02:00
>>rainsf+RA
You really can't grasp that GPUs scaled at this level is the most ambitious thing possible? That it will be the foundation of unfathomable technological innovation?
◧◩◪◨
4. kergon+OP1[view] [source] 2026-02-03 10:38:39
>>Rover2+LG
"In space" is the new blockchain.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. Sketch+Au2[view] [source] 2026-02-03 14:57:04
>>kergon+OP1
Every time I hear stuff like this I think of Tim Curry just barely keeping it together during that one cut scene in Red Alert 3, except this time it's the ultra capitalists trying to corrupt space with capitalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1Sq1Nr58hM

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. Rover2+w13[view] [source] 2026-02-03 17:12:35
>>Sketch+Au2
"corrupt space with capitalism"

I think this is how the masses feel at this point. Progress bad. Capitalism inherently bad. Anything non-natural, bad.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. kergon+2y3[view] [source] 2026-02-03 19:17:07
>>Rover2+w13
Capitalism, as in the worship of capital and its accumulation, is responsible for some major evils in our current world. I am not saying that it is the worst system in existence, just that it is tragically insufficient and we need to seriously think about what we are doing. There are major issues we need to solve that market forces will only make worse.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. Rover2+Es4[view] [source] 2026-02-04 00:02:44
>>kergon+2y3
I'd argue that more free market forces need to be applied to the biggest failings in the US - healthcare costs, housing costs, etc. These industries are over-sheltered by over regulation and political roadblocks. And in what systems are people suffering the most - the ones where the free market has been destroyed by corrupt socialists/communists. In the western hemisphere, Venezuela, Cuba, etc.Look at the turn-around in Argentina from far left to far right economics. It's incredible.

China is an interesting mix though, hard to draw conclusions from there.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. kergon+9D4[view] [source] 2026-02-04 01:05:54
>>Rover2+Es4
> I'd argue that more free market forces need to be applied to the biggest failings in the US - healthcare costs, housing costs, etc.

For housing maybe. It’s useful to have governments nudge developers to build affordable housing, which is less profitable, but if you have enough supply it can work. It does not work in most of Europe, where land is scarce and expensive and developers still want money. More than zoning laws, housing issues in Europe is in large part caused by the lack of government-build (or subsidised) affordable housing on the low end.

For healthcare, hell no! A single payer brings massive economies of scale and a lot of bargaining power, which limits price gouging. Hospitals are local natural monopolies, it makes no economic sense to have enough of them around to have meaningful competition. Demand is very inelastic and people just pay what they must to get treated (when they can pay). Insurance companies have interests that are directly opposed to those of their customers. Most people do not cost much for most of their lives, but have crippling expenses at some unpredictable points when they get sick or have an accident. National social security schemes smooth out the risks over the whole population, which makes everything more manageable. To me, healthcare is the opposite of a situation where free market makes sense.

[go to top]