Every time someone DIYs one of these guys the internet at large lambasts them as fire risk death traps. Fairly curious if these are any different, certainly looks like they’re much the same from the photos.
As they saying goes, you have to dodge the trap every time, they only have to get you once. Sooner or later we all will slip up if we’re subjected to endless con attempts.
"When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles,"
I guess these things aren’t literally exclusive, but it’s pretty amusing that elsewhere the rebuttal argues that we’re deep in a great stagnation which we need space exploration to pull us out of. (In the bit where he is arguing against the idea that we should wait a century and then maybe try to colonize space with greater technology)
> The slowdown in GDP growth is not mere paranoia, but an economic fact. Part of the problem with
seeing clearly the stagnation all around us is that we need to compare ourselves to what might have
been, not to the 1950s as the authors do.
I was very interested to see in that rebuttal that they explicitly called out ‘datacenters in space’ as a means of ‘exporting’ solar power to the earth.
> As the Weinersmiths point out, the ease of generating solar electricity in space is foundational to space
development. They focus on the challenges in beaming power back to the Earth, but the “power” could
be returned to the Earth in other ways, such as by doing energy intensive manufacturing in space, with
the result that we do not need the power on the Earth itself. One modern idea that O’Neill did not
consider is to move server farms in space, where power is cheap and you can dump heat into space with
a black piece of metal. If this was done on a large scale, the carbon impact of data services on the Earth
would drop greatly even if power is not beamed back to the Earth. There are almost certainly other
ways we can use power in space to do things in space that benefit people on the Earth.
So the original article seems to think that cooling is a significant challenge and that solar power in space is not ‘that much’ more effective than on the earth, and the other that cooling is trivial and that solar power is easily obtained. I’m inclined to go with ‘space is hard’ as that seems to comport with my other readings, but obviously the critique of ‘a city on mars’ is advocating for space exploration and is so motivated to minimize the difficulties.
I slightly have trouble believing that Mr “Stop wasting tokens by saying please to LLMs” Altman is not considering how his models can be optimized. I suppose the real question is how accurate are the utilization numbers in the article.
Pertaining to that observation, I really liked this section:
> In 2022, California became the first of a half dozen or so states to offer free school meals to all students, regardless of family income. Dillard supports free meals for all students with an emphatic, “Yes, yes, yes!” Food should not be based on income, she says: “It should be part of the school day. Your transportation is of no charge to students. School books are no charge to students. School lunch should be of no charge to students. … It’s just the right thing to do.”
On one hand, that seems like an excellent argument to use for free school lunches. On the other hand, it feels like school busses are like libraries, accidents of history out of step with the modern world. If this became a rallying cry there'd probably be a strong pushback to start charging kids to be taken to school.
The only advantage is that if the company is more efficient they'll be less likely to fire you because the business is failing. They'll just be firing you to eliminate a cost.
Did you ask it to search the Internet as a part of your request? It is still extremely imperfect, but that typically helps it get basic details correct. At least for me at any rate.
Traditionally the story was that almost no one paid the sticker price, but still that’s an eye watering sum even discounted.
I’m sure in the next few years we’ll have stories of people 500k in debt or more for their schooling.