You're talking about a consumer "digital twin." Create a virtual stand-in for you based on your data, experiment against it to find the tactics that yield the optimal response (whatever that is) and then deploy it into the world to directly manipulate you. Personalized advertising to its most extreme end. What do you think the metaverse is? That's a data vacuum that creates your digital twin to commercialize every fucking second of your life.

Could it exist? Fuck yeah, that's where we're going.

Does it exist? No, not yet. Computations cost too much. But that will be fixed with more efficient software for specialized stacks.

Very fair and true. There are some of the world's most brilliant people doing that work, history making stuff. I wouldn't want to diminish their effort. At the enterprise level, in terms of how tf do you build a space company when at the time there weren't too many examples and virtually no examples of non-major-contractor launch providers, especially with an indigenous system. The fact that she took them through that totally unknown terrain, giving the rest of the brilliant minds the runway they needed to create something wholly new, that deserves a lot more public attention than perhaps she gets.

But again, I agree with you. It takes a village of geniuses.

I fuckin love that Shotwell is the source for this and not Musk. She is the most critical element in SpaceX's success. Without her, SpaceX would have never left the mariachi party, and it is absolutely appropriate and fitting that she is the source for the news regarding the test. She really deserves so much more attention and admiration than she gets. Hate to sound like a fanboy but she's more than earned it. Absolute rock star in building and running a complicated business.

Oh automated news items are already quite advanced. News outlets like NYTimes, Associated Press, probably Reuters and some others, have all made large investments in automation for content generation. AP has been doing that for many years, well before Chatgpt. But we should be very very skeptical of further automation of news generation because of the enormous potential for bias, either intentional or not. Imagine if Rupert Murdoch had an algorithm to write every news item with exactly the same slant that he decided when he woke up that morning - basically pairing AI with propaganda and putting huge power in a small number of hands. I am not looking forward to that replacement

AI will change the world with the same expansive impact as not just one technology but the entire industrial revolution. We are entering a post-industrial world where things will be done differently, very differently. The country that figures that out first and develops the tools to fuel that new world, wins. It's not an arms race - it is a race for dominant global influence because the leading country sets the norms and rules. I would rather have America do that, because if China is setting norms and rules for AI, then we truly are fucked. Their country is already a dystopian surveillance state.

>Laws of physics be defied if something turned out to be different when we finally exit the heliosphere?

No. To our knowledge, the laws of physics are universal, in the true sense of the word.

It would probably only serve to motivate everyone involved. The next mission would be dedicated to the dead and the journey continues.

It was a jobs program, and it remains a jobs program. I'm excited for Artemis, for sure, but just because SLS flew ONCE doesn't mean it is justified in terms of cost, tech strategy, and design. SLS can fly 10 more times and the budget isn't justified, in part because it's another $2B a pop.

542 AU, solar gravitational lens. We could, theoretically, see surface details on exoplanets, directly observing life if it's there.

One issue in your thinking that needs to be teased out is that not all companies are equal when it comes to AI adoption. You say some companies dive in with an incorrect view of what AI can do - yes and no. The world's largest companies are already deploying AI in every business unit. Indeed, the current power of ML has been driven hugely by the private sector dumping huge sums into programs that, at scale, show the hype is real. Sometimes deploying just one bot for a given process, globally, that turns into millions of dollars in savings, or huge increases in efficiency, etc. I do not agree that these kinds of companies went into AI with anything less than 20/20 vision. Some big businesses certainly struggle to get things out of the lab, but that has more to do with their processes and decision making, very little to do with the AI capabilities themselves.

Looking at smaller businesses, eg $5M revenue with one IT person and no data scientists, sure, they could be lured in by hype. But there are mature off the shelf automations, or as-a-service offerings, that can cater to these organizations as well. The issue for these groups is figuring out what to spend money on and what not to, and the hype could lead them into thinking they are going to moonshot past the competition, when in reality, they just need some basic automations and perhaps new tech investments - data warehousing, retire old tech stack, etc.

That's a good point. I can want to be the target audience, but alas I am probably not, for similar reasons.

I boo this writer. That line "no exaggeration" is from a 2008 book on the history of astronomy across civilizations, and the first line of the preface is "It is no exaggeration to say..."

That suggests to me the writer of this article did not read the book at all. It is also odd that he would use this quote when every example in the article is far less than 5,000 years. If you look at his other articles, this is his thing. He cherrypicks quotes from books and inserts them as if it is wise and insightful. The topic is fine but idk this writer really bugs me.

The root of the idea is in explaining why our universe's physics are so finely tuned to allow a universe that can end up producing something like us. The odds that our universe would be this make-up, rather than another, are enormous. So either we're super special or, taking the "as above so below" notion, every potential universe make-up exists and we are seeing this one because it's the only one where we can emerge. The notion of energy ("energy to maintain itself") might not even apply to other universes because their physics are unknowable. And whether energy exists between universes, now we're in the realm of "just making it up."

In terms of the theories that grow out of that and how everything is rationalized and explained, honestly it's untestable and pretty useless from a scientific view. If something is in another universe, by definition, we cannot access it. All we can do is infer the possibility but never get closer than "maybe." It's an interesting idea but what's the point? Whether it is true is inaccessible knowledge.