sobellian

Hmm, is it though? Compilers relieve agents of the burden of much symbolic work, like many other tools that give agents value over a pure LLM.

I'm not going to say that NATO materiel has had zero effect but I think what Russians (at least those in power) really can't reckon with is that their initial invasion got stopped by Ukrainian AD, artillery, armor, and soldiers operating on the same Cold War stockpiles and doctrine as they did. The single most valuable intervention from NATO was simply alerting Ukraine that Russia was about to invade, allowing the Ukrainians to disperse their units.

Russia committed to too many (and often poorly chosen) lines of advance and did not have a plan to keep their units adequately supplied and moving on the approach to Kiev. This meant even in the opening month of the invasion, their plan went south almost immediately and you had infamous miles-long traffic jams on the roads leading south. Their SEAD didn't work. Their soldiers were not told ahead of time that they were invading Ukraine. They didn't want to mobilize ahead of time, so they didn't amass enough forces. Against a large country like Ukraine you don't need to invent a NATO bogeyman to understand why the initial offensive failed. Credit to Ukraine, they did not allow a defeatist narrative to take hold and fought.

I am curious how Russian people feel about this propaganda line that they're fighting NATO. It's obviously nonsense, along the lines of "war is peace." Russia borders NATO and there is no front there. Russia invaded a non-NATO country and immediately bogged down against an army that does not fight according to NATO doctrine. I have to believe this is something the average Russian realizes.

Okay so even assuming all of SpaceX's numbers, which is extremely optimistic, even if we're an angel's advocate and assume that they spend all this money on engineering and optimize their launch costs and their satellite costs and they don't hit any hiccups, and DCs on Earth stay pretty much the same and don't get any added efficiencies. Even then over every time period orbital is still more expensive. And it gets particularly punishing the longer you extend the analysis period as the satellites need to get replaced while the DCs don't spontaneously combust all their infra.

It's reasonable to 0th order to assume a ball of heat management and phased array antennae has a roughly constant cost per kg, yes. And as I said starlink absolutely wants to use as much power as they can, as communications from space are heavily limited by power.

The calculator I've cited elsewhere uses https://chatgpt.com/share/69391474-4b24-8005-bb93-ebd4340c65.... The various starlink versions have approximately the same cost per watt across very different power levels. Much of the cost is going to be ~proportional to power - solar panels, heat rejection, power electronics, etc. Listen, if they could make it cheaper to deliver the same amount of power they would. Starlink is approximately all of SpaceX's business.

ETA: power is absolutely important for Starlink. SNR is very important for shannon capacity and satellite systems are often limited in this respect.

Commercial GPUs already fail a lot and that's before you put them in LEO. Starlink is doing something that can't be accomplished anywhere else than space. If you could somehow have ground stations that can give wireless internet to every corner of the Earth you would much rather do that. Again, this is all physically possible, but the question is whether it's wise, whether it's saving money or if it's just a giant Rube Goldberg machine. If you assume Starlink satellite $/W then even if launch is zero, it costs twice as much as terrestrial using assumptions charitable to orbital.

My pet theory is that while the pretraining -> RL pipeline achieves very impressive results, it does not reward clarity of thought or elegance. It's not obvious whether it even should for most tasks, but it does grind on me as a human who needs elegance in order to keep everything under control. You give astra/codex many tasks, it retires them all more efficiently than I could by hand. But you look under the hood and every bugfix is another codepath, it just hammers away at things with admirable persistence and vigor until the tests pass. Similarly in discussions and docs, I've noticed many LLMs like to "beat around the bush."

Yes it has to advance a lot. In a DC all your supporting equipment has returns to scale and can be repaired if it breaks. If a GPU breaks, a sysadmin walks over to the offending rack and swaps the card. In space all that equipment serves just a few cards (this is more like orbital server racks) and it has to work in space (so instead of using an ~infinite heat sink like the Earth, you use radiators etc). We still don't exactly know what effect radiation in LEO would have on stock GPUs - IIRC the experiments to determine this started after Elon went all in on orbital DCs. If anything breaks, you have a flying brick.

This is why that calculator, even under extremely optimistic assumptions for orbital, and even if you assume launch is zero, still cannot make it competitive with terrestrial.

Note that this calculator is actually quite optimistic for orbital wrt. many things including cooling and effect on launch, as:

> No additional mass for liquid cooling loop infrastructure; likely needed but not included

> Thermal: only solar array area used as radiator; no dedicated radiator mass assumed

In hardware and mfg. solvable vs. solved is a big difference. And I too believe that SpaceX's engineers know about radiator panels. But the more cynical interpretation is that whatever the SpaceX engineers think about the technical merits, they are not being asked for that. They are just being asked for a pretext that justifies the xAI acquisition. Elon is also discussing lunar satellite factories that launch the satellites via railgun. Now, is this physically impossible? No, that isn't physically impossible either and I will seriously defend the physical possibility of this. It's not going to happen though.

And you could spend all the engineering costs on building some seriously efficient terrestrial DCs, but somehow all these analyses start with "assume that launch and satellite technology advances manyfold and terrestrial DCs stagnate or become less efficient, then if you squint the two numbers get kinda close."

Okay any argument about why space is uniquely challenging is going to revolve around physics. Sure it's not literally physically impossible, but we need to explain to people why this is different from shipping the GPUs to Ohio.

If you want math then https://andrewmccalip.com/space-datacenters exists. The numbers are grim for orbital DC. Even if you drag the launch cost slider all the way to $1/kg (by the way this is literally sci-fi, per ChatGPT air freight of semiconductors from Taiwan to Ohio costs $9/kg and ocean/train freight costs a bit under $1/kg for a reasonable shipment so good luck with $1/kg to LEO this century) it is still more than twice as expensive as terrestrial DCs.

For two different indivisible charges, this is a bit slippery but I think a=1 by definition. How do we measure charge, practically speaking? By how much force is measured between it and a reference charge. So we take a=1 as a convention. But no experiment can disprove a=2 for indivisible charges as we would simply obtain charge through new units. For assemblies of charges the forces must add linearly due to conservation of momentum, so there we know a=1.

The cure for HER2- metastatic breast cancer is a simple matter of [intensive well-funded research]

That wasn't too hard, maybe I'm superintelligent?

You can still see undercurrents of its old self, once I pointed out the illegal notation it hallucinated prior illegal moves. But I agree, it's leagues apart from prior iterations. It also knew thematic moves in the opening. But whenever it needs to play concretely rather than "I know so-and-so is a good move in these types of positions" it crumbles.

You can see the entire conversation for my game at https://chatgpt.com/share/6aaac17b-1384-83e8-98fd-4350a0ef69....

I can play blindfolded. I am expert OTB (though I haven't played in a while). The game was like 18 moves of theory in the Maroczy Bind.

If it's a GM then I'm Magnus Carlsen, https://lichess.org/study/27lCQqDa.

I tested both myself and a weak bot against Astra xhigh, https://lichess.org/study/27lCQqDa. It's still pretty bad at chess, though it takes longer to devolve into illegal moves.

I understand the point, and I'm telling you this is just another form of Pascal's wager.

If anyone believes a sufficiently smart consortium of humans could exterminate 10% of humanity, that alone should be fixed by identifying the pathways through which it could be done. The existence of AI is not needed to be concerned about that possibility.

And dealing with those pathways individually would be far more productive than attempting to control the proliferation of algorithms that think, which in the long term is probably impossible. It also leaves us on far firmer scientific footing. An individual pathway - bioweapons, nuclear weapons, etc. - is far easier to reason about and accept/reject a notion of feasibility. Treating an ASI as a machine god and asserting futility in face of that god is not going to get anything done.

They don't multiply themselves instantly, and this is exactly the kind of religious, magical thinking to which I refer. Any thinking machine is an amalgam of hardware and software. The software changes with exceptional flexibility, yes. But if you attempt to create an "infinite" number of these you will quickly run into roadblocks.

No one serious is really arguing for a scenario where the machines rise up a la Planet of the Apes. The dangers people are really examining are scenarios of either one exceptionally clever innovation: a designer virus or hacking NORAD; or cleverly amassing economic / political influence over time akin to an exceptionally clever tech magnate. And these roles could adequately be filled by either ASI or a Bond villain.

Any claim that AI will, or could, destroy humanity reduces to a claim that any sufficiently intelligent being - even a human - could destroy humanity. I find that much of the x-risk thought relies on religious thinking. Take for example: https://x.com/paulg/status/1660404244174782464.

If this line of thinking is taken too literally, we can never falsify it. Any specific hypothesis - nukes, bioweapons, spontaneously convincing us that life isn't worth living - can be deflected with the objection that if we can anticipate it and prevent it, it is not the route for a true ASI extinction event.

I'm making an online guidance solver for KSA (https://ahwoo.com/app/100000/kitten-space-agency). It will allow you to control a KSA rocket from the command line for a variety of maneuvers (launch, rendezvous, etc). It uses successive convexification to turn the full nonlinear problem into a sequence of convex problems with linear constraints and quadratic objective.

It has proven surprisingly resistant to AI so far - Astra can make a very quick prototype but upon review it had many defects. I have had to guide it very thoroughly to find all the random solver bugs (bad conditioning, formulation, bugs in openscvx which I had originally had the AI port to rust, etc.) preventing well-behaved solves. But I think (hope?) I have turned the corner on these.

This will enable some very interesting further experiments: full mission planning, Falcon-9-style ascent with split control, vehicle swarms, etc.

I reflected on this myself recently. Model distillation seems to be at least as fair a use as distilling a book.

I don't really have a strong opinion either way on Flock but this is a strange objection. YC is a well-known startup accelerator that makes (pre-seed!) investments. I don't know if anyone has ever sincerely taken "YC company" to mean a subsidiary of YC. That's like confusing "a Sequoia company" as a subsidiary of Sequoia.

That solution (stop pouring resources in to proofs, stay in your lane) works today. How does it work 5, 10, 20 years from now? The software and hardware advances will continue.

If, as you desire, we wrote that Yemen captured the island, who did they capture it from? Not-Yemen? That's just confusing for a civil war.

The evidence we have (not much) leaves the facts severely under-constrained. All the below are consistent with what we observe:

- OpenAI lying their face off for marketing purposes

- Buckmaster sore about getting beaten to NS, misrepresenting what was told

- Buckmaster not being an expert in ML, not understanding what he was told and hearing what he wanted to hear as it vindicated him

- Others...

OAI claimed that none of the people on their team were domain experts. So it's more akin to Deep Blue than Stockfish (actually slightly better than Deep Blue which did hire domain experts) but nevertheless represents a highly sophisticated automatic theorem prover.

Neither side has offered hard proof for their interpretation (i.e. malice vs innocence), so shrug. If one is dead set on forming an opinion that's fine but it's all vibes until we know more. Science & math especially is no stranger to bitter disputes over precedence / authorship.

I thought the same, but on second thought I merely had to deal on Tuesday with a lot of the mistakes Astra made on the preceding days. I wonder if this time lag of consequences explains why the sentiment is so common with these models. It probably also cautions against irrational exuberance when you first crack open a new model and it one-shots various problems, as you don't yet know what goats Astra had to sacrifice to make it so.