Thats not the same. In this case, a machine made a descision that was against its intructions. If a machine make decisions by itself, no one knows avout the process. A team of humans makimg decisions, benefits from multiple point of views, despite the manager being the one that aproves what is implemented or decides the course ofnthe proyect.
Humans make mistakes, and they are critical too (crowdstrike), but letting machines decide, and build, and everything, just let humans out of the processes, and with the current state of "AI", thats just dumb.
That's a very different problem than what I was replying to, which was about them being tools that "shields you from learning" and "using the tool that let's you avoid understanding things was a bad idea".
I agree that AI have risks specifically because of memetic monoculture, in that while they can come from many different providers, and each instance even from the same provider can be asked to role-play in many different approaches to combine multiple viewpoints, they're all still pretty similar. But the counter point there is that while multiple different humans working together can sometimes avoid this, we absolutely also get group-think and other political dynamics that make us more alike than we ideally would be.
Also you're comparing a group humans vs. one AI. I meant one human vs one AI.
NASA and most of the unmanned space exploration programs will probably be fine.
It's the manned space exploration programs and all the space-as-in-vapid programs that could and should be cut with extreme prejudice.
And in case I need to make myself clear: There is no value in manned space exploration at this point, at least no value that can't be obtained with unmanned programs. I say that as someone who was and will always be fascinated by Apollo, Space Shuttle, et al.
> It's the manned space exploration programs and all the space-as-in-vapid programs that could and should be cut with extreme prejudice.
The main thing on the chopping block is all rocket R&D and forcing NASA to contract out that work. It's unlikely Musk would suggest chopping the programs themselves as those are very lucrative contracts SpaceX would be bidding for.
> no value in manned space exploration at this point
Only if you ignore the value of inspiring the next generation of scientists and explorers.
>the chopping block is all rocket R&D and forcing NASA to contract out that work.
Nearly everything NASA does outside of operating the missions themselves is contracted out, especially the SLS which is all of it:
* The main stage (aka core stage), essentially a repurposed Space Shuttle external fuel tank with engines bolted on, is contracted out to Boeing, with so far one launch and two completed production units in at least ten years of production.
* The main engines, which are refurbished SSMEs used as throwaways, are contracted out to Aerojet Rocketdyne.
* The SRBs are contracted out to Northrop Grumman, and the first eight launches will all be reusing the old Space Shuttle SRBs.
* The second stage, a repurposed Delta IV second stage, is contracted out to United Launch Alliance which is basically Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
* Finally, the Orion is contracted out to Lockheed Martin and Airbus. Incidentally, this is the only "new" component of the program.
>Only if you ignore the value of inspiring the next generation of scientists and explorers.
Unmanned programs like Hubble and the other Great Observatories, New Horizons, Spirit/Opportunity/Curiosity, and the two Voyagers inspire the people far more than manned programs.
There was value in manned programs before, we needed to figure out WTF human bodies will do in space. We figured that out at least 20 years ago. Now we need to keep contriving excuses to keep ISS flying and there's barely enough commercial interest in manned space utilization.
No, cut it all. Until we reach the next paradigm shift where we have to send men out into the black again to gain answers, robots can do everything a man could for cheaper, safer, longer, and faster.
> Nearly everything NASA does outside of operating the missions themselves is contracted out, especially the SLS which is all of it:
Kind of but not quite AFAIK. The design, specification building, and various prototyping happens within NASA. They contract out once they know what they want to build. Musk doesn't have the ability to cancel the SLS. That would require an act of Congress and face all the same obstacles as why the SLS got created in the first place (to save jobs that would have been cut after the cancellation of the shuttle). However, he would be able to cut the design and specification building & prototyping that NASA does and instead force them to contract out for that (preferably to SpaceX).
The entire focus of DOGE seems to be to reduce the number of employees, not to cut programs. The reason for that is also tactical sabotage. It's hard to cut programs because politics gets involved. But if you could mass fire employees so that government can't succeed at those programs, then you can follow up later and point to how government is incompetent and the programs need to be cut since they're not meeting their goals.
> Unmanned programs like Hubble and the other Great Observatories, New Horizons, Spirit/Opportunity/Curiosity, and the two Voyagers inspire the people far more than manned programs.
Unmanned programs inspire people already inclined to science & exploration of the unknown. They do not inspire people who aren't so inclined and who instead look towards heros to show them what's possible or ask "why are we spending any money on space exploration". Said another way, unmanned programs don't inspire people to become astronauts or value spending on research into exploration. Neil Armstrong landing on the moon inspired a lot of people to dream of becoming astronauts and perhaps spark their interest in science in the first place.
That's why the Mars program is important even if scientifically it's of limited value.
One thing I'll highlight. While Musk is a darling for SpaceX today because SpaceX is competing aggressively, over time SpaceX will inevitably morph into the next Boeing and put us back into the same problems if they're allowed to monopolize the government funds.
The government would save billions (tens of billions over the long haul), increase cadence, increase mission scope, and cut flight times, by cutting NASA’s build-&-burn rocket manned program in favor of SpaceX’s reusable manned craft and space refueling services.
SpaceX Starship could also reduce the cost and increase cadence of scientific missions, in two ways:
1) By reducing launch costs via greater system reuse.
2) And by increasing available launch volume, eliminate a lot of the design & manufacturing time, cost, complexity and risk created by today’s need to fit craft into toad’s more limited volumes.
Less need for craft miniaturization means (a) fewer risky/complex unfolding maneuvers in flight, (b) much easier radiation mitigation via more shielding, larger more resilient circuits, redundancy, etc. And (c) fewer craft, with more capabilities and higher longevity.
And as with the manned program, increase mission scope, while reducing transfer to target times, via in orbit refueling.
If only we could find someone with the incentives, plan, means and mandate, to cut government space spending while somehow also expanding its manned & scientific space exploration capabilities and scope.
The hardest part is to find such a uniquely capable person, who also has enough slack time to take this on. A rare trait combination, indeed. What are the chances of finding a genius reefer doom scrolling bloviating slacker? Who could put all that disposable time to better use?
1) I think NASA does best when it focuses on the frontier of space, where private industry does not yet have the incentives or capabilities to increase our knowledge and access to space and solar system resources.
2) I think NASA does best, when it takes the greatest advantage of private industry, where ever industry is able to provide lower costs or higher performance.
I think this is more in line with how public money should be spent.
I think it reduces a lot of wasted money spent on unnecessary redundant and obsolete efforts.
I think it results in the greatest bang for the buck, for the government, and the greatest incentive to improve for industry.
At this time, I think the frontier NASA should be focused on (where industry is not yet incentivized enough), is manned space habitats, and unmanned and manned exploration of the solar system's potential manned sites and resources.
Where I think it should have already passed on the torch, is manned and unmanned orbital, lunar and solar system launch capabilities. Industry is already performing and incentivized to provide these capabilities better than NASA. NASA can best contribute to improving those capabilities, with the least investment, by being a demanding customer.
SpaceX happens to have put itself in the center of those principles, due to a lot of fine work. But the principles make just as good sense, regardless of who the industrial innovators are.
If we actually funded public services to the required levels NASA and so forth would be fine to do things in house. We're just allergic to anything that makes actual sense when we have an oligarchy to support. That's it.
How do you view the cost effectiveness of the SLS?
Couldn't that money be put to better use expanding the boundaries of human and machine exploration, instead of being a less efficient redundant effort?
I do not think that porn and flash games were the reason the internet became trendy and stupid. I blame social media, like tuenti, facebook, fotolog, hi5, even myspace.
The thing with stupid people overcoming the internet was not corporations investing on publicity nor searching engines selling the rankibgs of searching results. What made stupidity feel safe on internet and become trending, were the spaces that allowed those people to gather, to be in "the same place" with no one there to judge, correct them and laugh at them for being ignorants. This gave them the wrong idea that they were relevant in a sense were despite knowing nothing about anything, their opinion was valid and deserved respect, as much as the opinions from experts.
I’m old enough to have been there, the internet became popular long before modern social media became a thing. Think Geocities -> MySpace —> Facebook etc.
Also modern search manipulation optimized on engagement had a particular moment when both Facebook and Twitter went from showing you a defined set of things to their selected subset of things.
What are you talking about? If you take 2.5% to spend it on better infrastructure and existing technologies (that are more environmentally friendly) and develop new technologies, you are not reducing GDP. GDP just measures the ammount of money a country spends.
Of course you need to spend money and energy (specially energy, everything in the universe is energy), but the solution is not to stop moving. We need to use energy and resources in order to switch to better technologies.
A new energy source is not like a new technology that can be developed. It needs to be discovered - as in a scientific break-through. A plan can not assume that break-throughs occur.
GDP measures the total production of an economy. That is mostly equivalent to energy_consumption * p_efficiency.
Investing in new technologies that increase efficiency has always been a good decision. Maybe you can improve solar panels by a further 5% and batteries by 10%?
Realistically, energy_consumption will need to decrease, but that isn't actually that terrible.
No. The energy consumption does not need to decrease, the source must be more eficient. We have nuclear energy, despite the propaganda, nuclear energy (specially the Thorium reactors) produce very little waste and pollute less than fosil fuels or even solar panels. You do not need to discover a new source of energy to stop climate change. The problem is that people keep thinking in how much it will cost.
Again, GDP measures how much money is spent within a country, if there are several intermediaries in a supply chain, the cost of products and services increases and the GDP tends to rise.
If a country change direction and leans towards nuclear energy, the GDP (that is in fact a terrible measure) will increase cause the new expenditures.
What? When saying that "X" is an accident, nobody means "nature says 'oooops'. Nature is neither conscious nor alive, if universe were alive and creates and shapes life, why is there so many errors happening in the universe?
Everything exist by " accident", and that means that is the result of random events that happen unexpectedly in unimaginable places, leading to an environent were the outcome of this events causes more random events.
Why universe insist in making life so uncommon if it has the secret to create and replicate?
Why? You want to solve the problems caused by the lack of social integration-interaction by not socializing using VR. The problem with VR, videochat, social networks,etc., is that you are not there, you do not face the challenges nor the consequences of social activities. People gets anxious just thinking about that sonthey never leave their comfort zone, thus causing more issues on the individuals and,obviously in the society.
Society and social system are not working ideally, in fact is far from acceptable levels if you ask me. But the solution is not ostracism disguised as virtual interaction.
You are right. The technology is part of the problem. The article points how social media xan not solve the problem. In my opinion social media is the biggest problem regarding this topic. Socialazing is a core necesity in human nature, denying this and other biological traits is what causes discomfort on individuals. Technology is only increassing the issue, not because technology is inherently bad or evil, but cause technology is developed to pursue wealt and power, bot in behalf of society.
Humans make mistakes, and they are critical too (crowdstrike), but letting machines decide, and build, and everything, just let humans out of the processes, and with the current state of "AI", thats just dumb.