| ▲ | petilon 3 days ago |
| In 2001: A Space Odyssey, the hero defeats the hostile onboard computer by entering its logic core and manually disconnecting its memory modules. That's hard to do if the AI rack is in space as SpaceX is planning to do. You can't disconnect. You can't shoot it. |
|
| ▲ | rsstack 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| It’s also not happening. They’re saying that because they need to somehow explain how there’s synergy between their space side and their Grok side. It doesn’t work, but that doesn’t matter to investors as long as they don’t actually do it. |
| |
| ▲ | heaney-555 3 days ago | parent [-] | | >It’s also not happening. People said this about every one of Musk's big ideas, from Falcon 9 landings to Model 3 mass production, Starlink, and FSD. | | |
| ▲ | petilon 3 days ago | parent [-] | | And extending the human race to Mars, and Hyperloop, and frontier AI model, and DOGE cutting $2 trillion per year in government spending... | | |
| ▲ | heaney-555 3 days ago | parent [-] | | You don't think the human race will be extended to Mars? As for frontier AI model: let's see Grok 4.8 before drawing any conclusions there. | | |
| ▲ | toasty228 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > You don't think the human race will be extended to Mars? Not in any meaningful capacity. Probably not even as much as we extended to the polar circles during our lifetime. It's a dead rock, there is literally nothing for us there, even with hundreds of years of extra climate change at the current rate and earth would still be a thousand times more suited for us than mars | | |
| ▲ | darshings 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yep in the current state of human capabilities, it’s a supply chain nightmare to sustain life there, unless somehow there’s something discovered on mars that is useful to humans on earth at a scale that can fund the infrastructure to maintain life there. I suppose it may be possible for new technologies to emerge that would allow synthesis of life sustaining “stuff”, the universe does seem to hold a lot of hidden surprises |
| |
| ▲ | AngryData 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not in anything resembling permenant habitation any time soon. We can't even make a self sustaining biosphere here on Earth, how would being on Mars make that any more possible instead of harder? | |
| ▲ | petilon 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > You don't think the human race will be extended to Mars? About the same probability as SpaceX running AI racks in space :) | | |
| ▲ | vman81 3 days ago | parent [-] | | To be fair, the vegas loop is operating - shipping a few racks to space to save face/muddle the issue won't be a problem. Operating/scaling it in a commercially viable manner is the issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | dgellow 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You can shoot them. But also, you can just stop sending them to space. It’s not like an AI will build and control space ships to replace and maintain its network in space… It’s sort of absurd how human agency is ignored in all those sci-fi scenarios |
| |
| ▲ | mindslight 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Do you feel like you have much agency in the economic and political systems that rule our lives? The problem does indeed always come down to humans, but the specific humans with the most agency are generally quite eager to take away the agency of everyone else to increase their own share. And by the time they themselves are actually affected, it's generally too late. |
|
|
| ▲ | ck2 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| well apparently the US now has "space weapons" which by definition have to be remote control and that means unlike nukes which hopefully still need a 2-man manual switch, the "space lasers" could be taken over by "AI" and then "AI" just blackmails and threatens the right people with those "space lasers" to get what it wants or even just stay online there was a 1970 movie based on a 1966 book which predicted this "Colossus: The Forbin Project" the book it was based on was written before we even landed on the moon decade before Wargames * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus:_The_Forbin_Project did terribly in theaters, I guess people didn't think "AI" was plausible then way ahead of its time, they should do a remake trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyOEwiQhzMI |
|
| ▲ | warmwaffles 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > You can't disconnect. You can't shoot it. Yes you can shoot them. The US has had this capability for a long time. Anti satellite missiles exist and they can be launched from an F-15 at it's highest altitude. |
| |
| ▲ | bpodgursky 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | SpaceX has 11,000 satellites in orbit (growing rapidly) and the US never had more than a couple dozen anti satellite missiles, which could not reach satellites in geosynchronous orbit anyway. | | |
| ▲ | warmwaffles 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Well if "kessler syndrome" is likely, you won't need many missiles. edit: what satellites are in geosynchronous orbit that are running AI workloads? | | |
| |
| ▲ | heaney-555 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | SpaceX's FFC application is for 1 million Starmind satellites. | |
| ▲ | petilon 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That's if SpaceX AI doesn't hack into the systems that control this capability first. And this is why physical access is important, as depicted in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. | | | |
| ▲ | palmotea 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | greggoB 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > That's hard to do if the AI rack is in space as SpaceX Pretty much every analysis I've seen concludes this isn't going to be a practical concern |
| |
| ▲ | heaney-555 3 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | tzs 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Why would people say the Model 3 would never be mass produced? Nissan had been mass producing EVs for years before Tesla did, so it was obvious that mass produced EVs were viable. (Tesla started selling EVs before Nissan did, but those were not mass produced). | | |
| ▲ | heaney-555 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The Model 3 was the first mass market long range EV. The Nissan Leaf models before the Tesla Model 3 had a maximum range of 107 miles. The Tesla Model 3 had a range of between 220 to 310 miles, depending on the trim. This is what made the Tesla Model 3 revolutionary. It was the first to be mass market with long range. | | |
| ▲ | tzs 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Chevy Bolt had 238 miles range and was released to customers 6 months before the Model 3. | | |
| ▲ | heaney-555 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | The Chevy Bolt had a maximum charging speed of 50 kW (compared to 250 kW for the Model 3) and almost no widespread fast charging network (compared to widely extensive Tesla Superchargers). One of the many reasons it failed in the market while the Model 3 & its big brother the Y went on to be the highest selling EVs of all time. Plus, 238 miles was its maximum trim, compared to 310 miles for the Tesla Model 3. So let me be even more clear, since you keep missing the point: the Tesla Model 3 was the first mass-market long-range EV with a truly fast charging rate and extensive public fast charging network, making it the first truly mainstream EV. | | |
| ▲ | defrost 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Don't need long range in an urban environment if near instantaneous battery swapping is available everywhere. The Gogoro battery-swapping refueling platform for urban electric two-wheel scooters, mopeds and motorcycles started up two years before the Tesla Model 3 making it the first mass market network provider of always charged and ready EV's making it the first truly mainstream EV backbone. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | greggoB 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't think these are serious points, GP is likely either a bot or Elon diehard - at least, they're not giving any substantive responses. | | |
| ▲ | heaney-555 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | The Model 3 was the first mass market long range EV. The Nissan Leaf models before the Tesla Model 3 had a maximum range of 107 miles. The Tesla Model 3 had a range of between 220 to 310 miles, depending on the trim. This is what made the Tesla Model 3 revolutionary. It was the first to be mass market with long range. |
|
| |
| ▲ | greggoB 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | More the kinds which did the math on solar roads [0] and the Titan submersible [1]. > FSD would never work without LiDAR From what I gather, this is still a contested topic, with Tesla's Autopilot only achieving Level 2 automation [2]. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/solar-road-panels-first-publ... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_submersible_implosion [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Autopilot | | |
| ▲ | heaney-555 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Tesla Autopilot hasn't been updated since 2019, it's just a lane-centering feature. You're probably thinking of FSD Supervised, which is indeed Level 2. But Tesla Cybercab, taking paid rides in Austin right now, is Level 4. And has no LiDAR. You can fly to Austin and take a ride on it right now if you don't believe me! |
| |
| ▲ | petilon 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The same kind of analysts are saying extending human race to Mars is a dumb idea. | | |
| ▲ | heaney-555 3 days ago | parent [-] | | You don't think the human race will be extended to Mars? | | |
| ▲ | petilon 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I think it will happen in about the same timeframe as SpaceX runs AI racks in space. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | dfgknionio 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >reusable rockets would never work I am so fucking tired of people acting like we haven't had reusable rockets since the 1980s. Do you think I was hallucinating when my parents drove me to Florida to see Columbia? | | |
| ▲ | heaney-555 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Fine, let's be more clear: reusable rocket boosters that land themselves. Experts said it wouldn't work. Then they said okay maybe it works, but the economics won't. Now they say nothing. | | |
| ▲ | dfgknionio 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The shuttle had reusable boosters, but if you are talking about something reusable that takes off and lands vertically you are correct that it isn't 1980s technology. It's 1990s technology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X?useskin... No one denies that SpaceX has done good work. But claiming that they have done anything others considered impossible is just wrong. The basic principles had been demonstrated decades before. You are correct that people criticized the economics. Seeing as SpaceX's prospectus shows their rocketry business loses money, I am not convinced they're winning that argument. | | |
| ▲ | heaney-555 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | The DC-X was incredible for its time, but it failed. > but if you are talking about something reusable that takes off and lands vertically No, I am talking about something that takes off and lands vertically after boosting a first stage to orbit. Suborbital is 100x easier. |
| |
| ▲ | AngryData 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Who said that? NASA had plans for reusable boosters if they were ever to get funding for it before spaceX was even an idea. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | lovich 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | There no benefit to data racks in space other than being outside of government jurisdictions, although the US and China already have demonstrated satellite killers. Every problem data centers have gets harder in space other than one small spot in orbit that can get uninterrupted solar. Heat dissipation, upgrades, repairs. All get significantly harder to perform the same work that can be done cheaper and more easily on the ground. Like really I’ll turn it around on you, what’s the benefit to AI data centers in space? |
|
|
