d_silin

What are the rest of US launch vehicles doing?

* SLS (NASA) - operational (for Artemis missions only).

* Electron (Rocket Lab) - operational.

* Vulcan Centaur (ULA) - return to flight scheduled for November 2026.

* New Glenn (Blue Origin) - return to flight scheduled for December 2026.

* Antares 300 (Northrop Grumman) - under development, first flight NET 2027.

* Terran R (Relativity Space) - under development, first flight end of 2026(?).

* Neutron (Rocket Lab) - under development, first flight NET 2027.

* Firefly Alpha Block II (Firefly Aerospace) - under development, first flight Q1 2027

* Nova (Stoke Space) - under development, first flight NET 2027

LLM don't care. Humans do, but humans with LLMs are more prone to "drive-by" style of software development or substituting "expensive" ingredient (human time and attention) with "cheap" one (LLM tokens).

The longer I think about the impact of AI on software development, the more I see parallels between "pets" and "cattle" types of software projects. Or more aptly, fine china and disposable styrofoam plates. LLM-based development allows large-scale production of essentially disposable software. Which is fine for many business cases - software is a cost for them. Even with software as products, it makes sense to optimize production costs.

But open-source software is far more about the process than the product. And therefore longevity of resulting software can be expected to be far greater. Foundations of our software stack - libraries, source control operating systems, compilers, databases and numerous other pieces require people capable and willing to do a long-term care of the software - hence, the community that need to last decades. Linux and PostgreSQL is 35 years old, git is 21, OpenSSL 28.

I believe human-only software development will remain for the foreseeable future, despite the growth of LLM-based ones, just like mass-produced grocery bread didn't displace the artisanal bakeries.

Bigger than Ceres, btw. Who knows many of those drift in icy, cold darkness of Kuiper belt and beyond.

Considering rapid rise in demand for power generation due to AI boom across developed world, there will be no deep and fast cuts.

On the other side I suggest avoiding "doom and gloom" mentality - Earth's biosphere will be fine at up to +10C.

"You can't fix social issues through tech axis"

It is quite good.

There is an observation that donated organs sync to a biological age of the recipient.

https://www.inc.com/lucia-auerbach/can-transplanted-heart-be...

Doing compute in space for ML is perfectly possible (i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phi-Sat-2), making it competitive with terrestrial compute is a much harder question to solve.

I am very skeptical about benevolence of our future overlords, humans or AI, towards people they don't need anymore.

The point stands, though. Senior engineers can detach themselves from implementation details because more junior engineers still do the hard parts. In the AI case, agents are the "engineers". Eventually all competency will be within AI domain and none within human one.

Why people are so eager to surrender their birthright to the machines for the mess of pottage?

Identifying what social policies work best in the long-term, hopefully. Or why certain cultural patterns persist and how they contribute to the society well-being.

I was thinking of applying partially ordered set theory to social science. Order theory assumes only comparison operation ("less than" or "greater than") is possible to perform on the elements of the sets, so ordering is possible, but the values themselves can be completely non-measurable.

Almost any ideology, no matter how noble and inspiring, can be hijacked by the worst kind of people for their own selfish wants.

How to fix this problem?

Why don't they use their AI solutions for software development?

This is the question I don't have a satisfactory answer for. But neither does Sam and Dario.

...absolutely nothing will change short-term. Long-term, you still have to pay all the bills, but you won't be able to find a job (all taken by AIs).

The actual solution link https://t.co/tz1shoCZZo

Current AIs are closer to bottle rockets than to the Starship on the intelligence scale. Some property damage already happened, but you can't master the art of rocketry without trial and error.

Market bubble will pop, not the first time and not the last, most likely after OpenAI and Anthropic IPOs.

To add a bit more constructive feedback, think of the "AI cornucopia" and "Superintelligence destroys humanity" as opposite ends of all possible outcomes distribution (low probability event).

The most likely one is the "business as usual, but with AI" - some things will get better, some things will get worse, but overall state of affairs will remain mostly the same.

A debate between grossly incompetent against grossly immoral, honestly.

You should ignore anything LessWrong or OpenAI says and do your own research.

Intel is also interested in this market.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/content-details/9234...

But humans can be. I am sure Sam Altman wants to avoid serving multiple decades in American prison for felonies his AI did.

While I am not 100% opposed to this idea, it should come with liability to the provider AND its error rate be better than best human doctors.

I suspect that you can definitely use planned economy tools down to a certain scale and then let the markets sort the rest.

At some level, Indian and Chinese economies have their development centrally planned, not just financially regulated, like in the West.

Neat. Note that battery life is reasonably good (2 years) even with Bluetooth sync feature.

I followed the story and he absolutely did, in multiple instances.

This is deeply unsatisfying answer.

The question to Sam and Dario would be: if the thing you are building is going do displace humanity, then why are you building it?