This is comparable to datacenters in space. We have no idea whether:
a) it is possible to construct such a scanner
b) the results of a scan would be able to diagnose anything
c) the false-positive rate would be low enough to make this useful
But it is probably very good as a source of speculation to hype the valuation of the company, because iff the above issues are solved, then this could be very valuable.
If any company can put profitable data centers in space, it will be SpaceX. But I doubt that any company can. The difficulties of the physics and engineering of cooling seem like they will always outweigh the advantages of keeping your data center on Earth.
I am annoyed by the insistence that the value of this company comes from something that no one has been able to show is possible yet without multiplying it by the obvious risk factor. And they seem to have got other companies like Alphabet[1] and Anthropic to publicize the idea, to give it more credibility.
I do not want my pension to automatically buy shares at $1T, but it looks like it will have no choice.
Talking in terms of "carbon" is misleading. Methane is much more potent than CO2. I don't know why you think methane is broken down at the same rate as it is added.
- Cattle release methane
- Forests are burnt to make room for crops/grazing
- Fertilizer for crops for cattle produces nitrous oxide
I do not claim this adds up to 60%, but to suggest it is zero is incorrect.
re 2: special relativity is not general relativity - large elements will not provide testable predictions for a theory of everything that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics.
re: "GR environments (such as geostationary satellites)" - a geostationary orbit (or any orbit) is not an environment to test the interaction of GR and QM - it is a place to test GR on its own, as geostationary satellites have done. In order to test a theory of everything, the gravity needs to be strong enough to not be negligible in comparison to quantum effects, i.e. black holes, neutron stars etc. your example (1) is therefore a much better answer than (2)
I am not quite so confident. I would like to see an experiment to test how badly you can distort an image of the moon before the AI stops recognising it.
Imagine the number and quality of textbooks you could commission from world experts in any and all languages for $300M, a single year at 20:1 price-to-earnings.
Is the app obviously better? More engaging, to some, perhaps. More profitable? I guess that remains to be seen.
Congratulations. It is somewhat surprising to me how some credits required vastly more effort than others. For example Algorithms 2 is worth as much as "Introduction to IT" - 4 credits each.
Were there other restrictions on which credits you could use? In your opinion is this "fair"?
Do we have the email with the "ultimatum" in it? I think there's a world of difference between
"Do these things or I'm gone and taking my team with me"
and
"These things are so fundamental to my role as an ethical AI researcher that it's difficult to see myself doing this job without them"
IANAL, but I suspect a court would also interpret them differently.
And even so, Google likes to position itself as a nice employer, which listens to their employees' concerns. De-escalating the situation would have been nice - immediately terminating the concerned employee makes Google seem like another giant faceless emotionless multinational corporation (which it may well be).