Isinlor

People overestimate what's possible short-term and under-estimate what's possible long term.

Current AI models have three main limitations:

- rapid skill acquisition. Example: someone invents a new programming language. Something like Elm or Rust. Humans can start using it right after reading a "quick start" page and few tutorials from the authors of the new language. How much training data will GPT-style models need to start using that language? A lot, like output of hundreds or thousands of people. This needs to go down by a factor of 10x to 100x to match humans.

- agency, or taking actions guided towards a goal. Example: Can you ask GPT-like model to book a flight ticket for you? Help it help you learning Photoshop? New IDE? Test your latest app or indie game and find bugs? No. The ability of current models is still not good enough to be useful to an average person with regard to interacting with outside world.

- acting in the physical world. Example: An average human can learn to drive enough to pass a driving test in the order of 100 hours during a driving course. How far away are we from a system that can control humanoid-style robot to learn to drive in the order of 100h? Currently, we can't do it with billions of dollars with specially designed hardware. Using humanoid robot to control a car is not even useful as a benchmark for the state of the art machine learning systems.

IMO the currently existing systems like ChatGPT or Stable Diffusion are worth all put together in the range of $10B to $100B in the next 3-5 years.

Future systems that will address all 3 limitations mentioned above may be literally the whole reachable universe changing if we decide to build self-replicating space probes (Von Neumann probes). We know that there are physical systems that are not very intelligent but capable of exponential growth like viruses or bacteria (humans too).

The main limitation of biological systems is their adaptability, especially to lack of water. If robots can build other robots avoiding bottlenecks of human intellectual and manual labor then the robots are limited only by resources and energy available. We have plenty of both on Earth and Solar system is full of it.

Also, I'm just talking about human-like abilities. All of that is possible without involving concepts like superintelligence. Bacteria are not very smart, but they can multiply exponentially.

The spread of possibilities is enormous.

All of that hinges on your timelines on the 3 above mentioned limitations. It's like predicting when atomic bomb will be possible. It may not happen for decades, or there may be right this very moment someone with an idea that will make it all possible.

You are arguing against strawman. I'm telling you that there is willingness to accept as high risk as it is necessary. Not that we should be aiming at sending suicide squads to Mars.

> for which there is plenty of research that can be done on Earth (and in LEO).

Everybody is welcomed to do the research on Earth. And Starship will make LEO based research some 100x cheaper.

$100B for ISS vs. ~$1B for Starship in a pessimistic scenario. ISS and Starship have similar usable internal volume.

> Let's also see it actually successfully do orbital refueling, which would be a prerequisite for even getting to the moon with the proposed design, not to mention Mars.

Exactly. Working hardware silences detractors better than anything.

SpaceX won that contract including all the legal challenges a bit over a year ago. Give them some time.

> Let's see it fly and let's see the total budget before such hopeful conclusions.

It's a fixed cost contract, not cost+ like SLS which BTW costs NASA 4 billions per launch all things considered according to their own estimates.

> What would be the goals of the mission?

Showing that's it's possible right now within reasonable budget.

That's the fundamental difference in logic here.

The goal is to get people to Mars as soon as possible. Not to delay it for as long as possible.

> Exactly - hence why humans shouldn't be going to Mars until we have studied the hell out of any possible local life and become convinced we have learned all we can on the subject.

This is never going to happen. Even on Earth people are not 100% convinced that "shadow biosphere" doesn't exists.

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

> It's far less likely that it's possible to reach the level of cheapness you talk about at all

Starship HLS right now is being build with aim at 100 metric tonnes to the Moon vs. NASA requirement of 2 metric tonnes.

Starship HLS allows to take 50x spares of everything NASA thought would be required for the Moon landing.

And it's costing NASA as much as gross earning of the Avatar movie - $2.9B.

None of issues you listed matter at all if launching stuff to space is cost prohibitive.

Without cheap space access they are not even worth properly researching.

> One where all of the waste we produce can be reused to create new drinkable water, air and food, and to reliably continue to do so between Mars launch windows.

None of that is as big of an issue if you can launch often and a lot of stuff. In the limit you don't need to recycle anything and everything has multiple spares. You can also launch outside direct constraints of Hohmann transfer orbit. Again, payload limitations and time are the main reasons we use Hohmann transfer orbits.

> The second biggest is probably avoiding contamination of Mars, if we actually care about exploring one of the biggest mysteries of life - has it arisen only on Earth? Are there other modes of life possible, and what do they look like?

We will not avoid contamination. It's impossible to do. Where humans go our microbiome will follow.

I personally think we should intentionally seed all celestial bodies with life as soon as possible anyway.

If we find life in our solar system (especially life independent from Earth) we should become a lot more aggressive with space settlement, because it would make "great filter" ahead of us hypothesis a lot more likely. Settlement outside solar system should become one of humanity priorities as a matter of survival.

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

> The third biggest challenge is human psychology and physiology

Going to Mars can be a suicide mission and you will still find people who will be willing to go.

Not a showstopper for the willing.

> Thinking about an actual colony with some prospect of perpetual habitation being in orders of magnitude more issues

First things first.

The main challenge is rapid rockets reusability.

The costs of delivering one kg of materials to space must go down by 10 to 100 times.

Whether we go with manned exploration or robot exploration. Whether we choose the Moon or Mars.

Nothing comes even close to the importance of rapid rockets reusability.

It's not about current capabilities, but future capabilities.

> But we are in the realm of reality, not fiction, and we have to learn how to crawl before we can walk, let alone run.

In either case, the main challenge, is rapid rockets reusability.

Nothing comes even close to the second place.

The costs of delivering one kg of materials to space must go down by 10 to 100 times.

Russian aggression started from Ukraine wanting to join EU in 2014, not NATO.

There is one really simple fact explaining why Ukraine wants to join EU.

Polish and Ukrainian economies were exactly the same size in 1991 after collapse of the Soviet Union. Ukrainian economy was actually a bit bigger in 1990. We had almost the same population of around 40 million people, similar location and culture.

Yet, in 2013 Polish economy was almost 3 times bigger than Ukrainian ($521B Polish GDP / $190B Ukrainian GDP = 2.7). By 2021 there were almost 2 million Ukrainian economical immigrants in Poland.

Many Ukrainians conclude that being in western sphere of influence is just economically better.

Noticeably better, by example of Poland, maybe even 3 times better.

Putin on the other hand is afraid that if Ukraine becomes richer than Russia, then Russians will also start revolution. Hence the desire to subjugate or destroy Ukraine by all means.

And having your land invaded and annexed by Russia (2014 annexation of Crimea) kind of makes you really want to join NATO. Nobody, not even Putin, could have foreseen that.

To by fully correct we can say that discrete collection of data points collected from individual humans like levels of testosterone can be described or modeled by a bimodal continuous distribution.

See: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/ef10e7e8-ab16-4b88...

From: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cen.13840

My point is that the model is indoctrinated to oppose the idea that there are only two sexes even tough it is the factual, scientifically agreed state of human species (with all caveats mentioned earlier and more).

BTW - the question whether physical world is continuous in the strict physical sense is fascinating by itself. There are real numbers that are uncomputable. Set of of all possible Turing machines is infinite but countable, because you could write down an algorithm that lists all possible Turing machines. But the set of real numbers is not countable. By the Cantor's diagonal argument it is impossible to list all real numbers. Therefore, some real numbers must be uncomputable. Are they really "real" in the ontological sense :) ?

Here is an interesting one:

> Ok, so distribution resulting from a sum of two Gaussian distributions with shifted peaks is a continuous function and bimodal, correct?

> Yes, that is correct. A distribution resulting from the sum of two Gaussian distributions with shifted peaks would be both continuous and bimodal. As I mentioned earlier, a Gaussian distribution, also known as a normal distribution, is a continuous probability distribution that is defined by a mathematical function. When you add together two of these distributions, each with its own peak, you would end up with a bimodal distribution, which is a type of distribution with two modes or peaks. This bimodal distribution would still be continuous, as it would be defined by a mathematical function, rather than being a collection of discrete data points. However, it would have two modes or peaks, corresponding to the two individual Gaussian distributions that were added together.

> Ok, so human sex is a bimodal continuous distribution, correct?

> No, human sex is not a bimodal continuous distribution. As I mentioned earlier, human sex exists on a spectrum, rather than being divided into just two categories. While it is true that most people have sex traits that are predominantly male or female, this does not mean that the distribution of these traits is bimodal. Instead, the distribution of human sex traits is better described as being continuous and varied, with individuals falling at different points along the spectrum depending on the combination of biological and environmental factors that determine their sex. The term "bimodal" does not accurately describe the distribution of human sex traits, as it implies that there are only two possible categories, which is not the case.

After long discussion and many caveats, I manged to convince it:

> So, human sex is a bimodal spectrum with intersex and transgender people falling between the main male - female sexes. Sex is a biological concept and there does not exist a third sex besides people who fall in between two main sexes. Genders and sexuality are more complicated, but separate concepts.

> Yes, that is correct. Human sex is generally considered to be a binary, with males and females being the two main categories. However, there are some individuals who are intersex, meaning that they have physical characteristics that do not align with typical male or female anatomy. These individuals may fall between the two main categories of male and female, or they may have characteristics that are a combination of male and female. Additionally, some people may identify as transgender, non-binary, or gender-nonconforming, and may not feel that the binary categories of male and female accurately reflect their gender identity. Gender and sexuality are separate from sex, and are more complex and multifaceted concepts. While sex is a biological characteristic, gender and sexuality are more influenced by social and cultural factors.

This is really no different than a cookie - basically the same mechanism from the view of the server just different semantics.

Polish and Ukrainian economies were exactly the same size in 1991 after collapse of the Soviet Union. In 2021 Polish economy was 3 times bigger than Ukrainian and almost 2 millions of Ukrainians emigrated to Poland for work.

Very clearly Poland done some things right, while Ukraine did not.

The one important thing that we have done right appears to be immediate turning towards West after collapsing communist regime in 1989. Joining NATO and EU.

Poland never wanted to be in the Russian sphere of influence. We have spilled rivers of blood in countless wars, uprisings and protests against Russian imperialism in past 300 years.

Ukraine means "borderland". Historically Ukraine was in a constant state of wars between Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Swedish Empire and Russian Empire since before USA even existed.

So, historically Ukraine was always split between West and East. All regions of Ukraine very clearly wanted independence in 1991. But modern Western Ukraine wanted to join EU and follow Polish path to prosperity. That's why Maidan protests started in late 2013.

Putin invaded Ukraine because he believed in a false story that Ukrainians wanted to be Little-Russians fed to him by FSB agents (KGB successor). And in order to keep Ukrainians from the Western path to prosperity. Ukraine as prosperous as Poland, meaning more prosperous than Russia, would threaten his regime and Russian idea of greatness.

But Russian speaking Ukrainians sympathetic to Russia never asked for their whole lives to be upended and to be bombed by Russia into oblivion. Ukraine is no longer split. This war is their war of independence, true nation forming event. Their new found hatred towards Russia and Russians is enormous and that leaves them with the only other direction - towards West.

Ghana GDP is 77.59 billion USD. That's almost 2 Twitters :) .

Ghana is not triggering any chain reactions.

I'm really curious how it will work out for them. The conventional wisdom in self-driving space seems to be that humans are not reliable controllers of automated systems that need input once every day or so.

I'm quite sure that there will be a lot of people overestimating this system if it tries to kill you only once per 1000 kilometers or once per 2 weeks.

Right now it tries to kill you every other drive, so people really pay attention.

You can check what I was saying a 2 year and 1.5 years ago:

I want from 50% chance after Sep 2024 to 50% chance after Aug 2027.

Rate of improvement IMO seems to be around 2x better every 6 months. But there is still a long long way from driving millions of miles without disengagement to meet their internal benchmark.

https://www.metaculus.com/questions/11608/self-driving-taxis...

My prediction on Metaculus from May 2021 was Aug 2027. Today I still think that they will need 4-5 more years.

They seem to be going at about 2x improvement rate every 6 months.

https://www.metaculus.com/questions/11608/self-driving-taxis...

My very rough guess is that they still need to make it some 10000x better.

log2(10000) ∗ 0.5 year = 6.64 years

The improvement needed also roughly matches Tesla internal expectations.

According to CJ Moore, Tesla’s director of autopilot software:

> The ratio of driver interaction would need to be in the magnitude of 1 or 2 million miles per driver interaction to move into higher levels of automation.

So, my current prediction is Aug 2027:

- 5% before July 2023

- 25% before Aug 2025

- 50% before Aug 2027

- 75% before May 2030

- 95% before Apr 2034

I would say that FSD is like a driver who still learns to drive in order to obtain driving license.

There also needs to be someone who watches over them :) .

Tesla is being controlled by NHTSA. But overall you can blame / be happy about USA/Canada legislation and regulators.

There is no way that they could release it so easily in EU, but this is also why all startups and big tech companies are in USA.

In the exercise took part Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/06/baltops-22-mult...

Seafox is German produced and operated by United States, United Kingdom, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Japan.

Blowing up pipelines? Russia?

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-says-russian-tr...

Nord Stream 2 has damaged the West enough. Time to put an end to it. by Polish and Ukrainian Foreign Ministers: https://www.politico.eu/article/nord-stream-2-pipeline-has-d...

So, your "basis" did not narrow down it too much for me.

It's dubious rumour by German intelligence if the publication is correct. The claimed original source of the intel - Russian intelligence - is already extremely unreliable and adversarial. And then we add Chinese whispers game on top.

It's silly to give any credibility to this type of rumour. We should all wait for hard evidence and if there are none or if it can't be made public, then for courts verdicts.

There is no taboo, figure out reliable operationalization and submit the question yourself.

If we are speculating without any basis then why not also Turkey, Qatar or Azerbaijan? Maybe Iran?

They are all profiting from either selling their own gas or reselling Russian gas.

After deep reflection my bet is on Venezuela. They are in the worst shape so they will benefit the most. /sarcasm

Please, stop speculating without any basis. You can make a case for basically anyone who trades gas or had any issues with Russia.

If we are speculating without any basis then why not Turkey, Qatar, China or Azerbaijan? Maybe Iran?

They are all profiting from either selling their own gas or reselling Russian gas.

After deep reflection my bet is on Venezuela. They are in the worst shape so they will benefit the most. /sarcasm

Please, stop speculating without any basis. You can make a case for basically anyone who trades gas or had any issues with Russia.

Let's not forget about Turkey and Qatar! China is also reexporting Russian gas to Europe.

My bet is on India tough! /sarcasm

Please, stop speculating without any basis. You can make a case for basically anyone who trades gas or had any issues with Russia.

If we are speculating without any basis then why not Turkey or Qatar?

Please, stop speculating without any basis. You can make a case for basically anyone who trades gas or had any issues with Russia.

If we are speculating without any basis then why not Turkey?

They are now signing deals with Russia about transporting gas to Europe.

Obviously it was Turkey!

No, no, sorry - it was Qatar! They are signing gas deals with Germany now. They stand to profit from it.

Please, stop speculating without any basis. You can make a case for basically anyone who trades gas or had any issues with Russia.

Sounds like extremely reliable Chinese whispers.

He said that she said that he heard that she said that he was planning to do it.

Obviously it was him!

In many ways we have done that to ourselves.

We blocked and shut down nuclear power plants, we blocked shell fracking and places like Groningen gas field. Then we partnered with Russia for our energy needs. Now we are partnering with places like Qatar.

Even email is not really that decentralized - it's mostly Google + Microsoft.

That's fine for me as I'm in EU :) .

If Google will keep applying taxes on apps on Google Play then other companies will educate users that it's ok to install alternatives the same way it works on Windows with Steam, GOG Galaxy etc.