Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | stainablesteel's commentslogin

it's either blue, or it's green. pick a side, coward

Ambiguity scaring the shit out of engineers is giving me life on this blah of a Monday.

the ability to mine the moon or asteroid belt seems extremely lucrative, the logistics of transporting materials to earth costs less than shipping them across the ocean, an astounding level of value creation.


This can’t a serious comment.

Did you notice the size of the Artemis rocket and the size of the payload it sends to the moon and back?

Do you expect there to be diamonds just laying these on the moon surface, no mining required.


you don't have to ship things the moon, you just build a mass driver on the moon that sends things to earth. it doesn't need to yield diamonds, this would be lucrative with just fresh water


You actually believe that transporting _water_ from the moon to earth could ever be profitable, no, lucrative? Can you lay out the economics? Just so I understand.


“Just” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.


There is no other mode of transportation cheaper than shipping across the ocean.


launching things via a mass driver from the moon to the earth requires a lot less fuel, is faster, and cheaper than shipping across the ocean


That one is subsidized by externalizing costs to our lungs.


Shipping on water has been, by far, the cheapest mode of long-distance shipping since the moment boats were invented. That is to say, since thousands of years before boats were ever powered by the shit that destroys our lungs.


So is pace travel. Then rockets are not green!


It is valuable if they can find the right rocks and bring them back. A platinum group metal asteroid would be of immense value, at least the first one anyways. After that who knows, they might super saturate the global market for decades.


our use of platinum has been limited by its scarcity, having tons of it would completely change the things we could build. saturation isn't a real downstream effect of economics, it would instead be transformative


my understanding of what classifies something as being a part of the same species is the fact that they can make children that are viable to have children themselves

horses and donkeys can breed to make mules, but the mules usually cant reproduce, this is the same with tigons and ligers but sometimes the females are viable

so if they can produce children that can produce children, they're the same species. where this line is blurred, so is the species line. geographical barriers have nothing to do with it.


> my understanding of what classifies something as being a part of the same species is the fact that they can make children that are viable to have children themselves

things are a bit more complicated than that, because having fertile offspring is not a transitive property. Ring species: population A can mate with B, B with C, C with D, and D with E, but A and E cannot mate, even though they are part of the same continuous chain.

Ensatina eschscholtzii salamanders in California exhibit this non-transitive behavior. Populations at the ends of the coastal ranges can interbreed with their neighboring populations, but where they meet in the south, the "ends" of the ring do not interbreed.


if you consider that geographic barrier is an environment of immediate lethality, or infecundity, that is physiological incompatability, and would be a speciation.

if you consider that geographic barrier, simply precludes, interaction between individuals, then you will have founder effect, thus one population will be genetically decended from a sample of the larger population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect


it's not like cost and energy use aren't competitive factors in this game

the first model to outcompete its competitors while using less compute would be purchased more than anything else


sam altman commented on this topic before, and i think he's right

we need some kind of user-chat privilege much like doctors and their patients, or lawyers and their clients


Alternatively we just need people to realize they're transcribing their thoughts into a corporate database, which should generally be avoided depending on the topic.


I solved all of this by marrying my chatbot. By definition it now cannot testify against me.


local models mean it never leaves the fence, I'd much rather do that.


i imagine they're doing superman level distributed compute across multiple clouds somewhere and cared more about delivering the final result of that than having the ability to pause. which is probably possible, but would require way more work than would be worthwhile. they probably thought the ability to stop and resubmit would be an adequate substitute.


These models are autoregressive so I doubt they are running them across multiple clouds. And besides, a pause button is useful from a user's pov.


i'm not sure it is, what's so useful about it?


Like I said in another comment:

It often happens that the interesting information is in the first paragraph or so, and the remainder is all just the LLM not knowing when to stop. This is super annoying as a conversation then ends up being 90% noise.


i get this is annoying, but any of this supposed to be some kind of safety measure for users against malicious actors?


i dislike LLMs going down that road, i don't want to be punished for being mean to the clanker


what will happen is people will get away with it, unfettered, until someday someone ends up in a courtroom for it. they'll be punished, then if it happens frequently enough more people will chime in on wanting a way to inhibit it, maybe people would start wearing those anti-paparazzi-clothes that somehow ruin the footage


completed deleted my linkedin, it's not even the least bit useful. it's full of fake stories and communication that sounds more robotic than human


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: