Starshield is a division of SpaceX that delivers tailored solutions to the government.
Just like Boeing Defence,Viasat (Government Systems),Intelsat (Government Solutions),and the like.
The satellites they deliver to the government as part of NRO Starshield for example use a Starlink bus with Northrop sensors. Other sensors can be added as you please
If you think Starshield's Internet costs too much, you can always buy from the cheaper (lol) competition. The USG also pays for regular Starlink services and they get what the hoi polloi get.
You truly do get what you pay for.
Shenanigans ensue when you think you can buy retail products and use them for things they aren't licenced for. We all know Microsoft Office home can type your military documents just fine afterall. Absolutely no need to pay more.
In my career I've worked with people with PHDs in Physics. People with advanced degrees in fluid dynamics and turbine engineering, people with chemistry and ChemE degrees, postdocs in Geology.
All were working alongside me, a self-taught programmer making websites.
I've long thought that there's an oversupply of smart people in the world but for the field of software development, which was hiding that fact by soaking all of them up.
If SDE is collapsing as a field, a whole bunch of people who thought their intelligence and credentials guaranteed them a comfortable life are in for a shock.
This is really looking at the problem from the wrong angle. It’s not that we don’t need all those degrees. The problem is that tech companies are making so much money that it makes other industries practically irrelevant when it comes to return on investment. It has thrown the economy completely off balance.
I was talking to the turbine engineer at lunch one day and the way he put it is this:
There are about five companies who hire people with his background. They all go through boom and bust cycles together. When he graduated they were in a bust cycle and nobody was hiring new graduates, so he found a job in software. He was glad because the pay and working conditions are better, and at the time (a few years ago) it seemed like software engineering was a safe career with lots of employers, which turbine engineering was not.
How would you propose an economy not be organized around money? Any examples you could think of that have worked well? I would also ask that in doing so if you can consider how these changes would work with today's nation states and the scale of 8 billion people or so too.
Regardless of what answers there are to an alternative (there are many, with both flaws and benefits that could work better or could be worse in practice), the question “how would it work at scale” is probably impossible to answer thinking in the framework of what currently exists. The people who benefit from the existing systems would make it impossible for anything else without disrupting power, which, if you view an economy built around profit as something that could not be sustainable into the far future, could be necessary.
This comment isn’t trying to be biased any specific way, just trying to be realistic while also saying alternatives exist but would likely be disruptive for better or for worse.
What will happen is not about what people prefer to happen or not. China grew rapidly too and the west is fearful of their success and that is why Americans are ramping up their Ai and drones and all that believing that spending money will deliver supremacy. There are/were many paths to success traditionally speaking and somethings will work and somethings wont. It is not a decision based phenomena. Its an outcome based on zillions of variables. Whether money will win or not and that everyone will benefit via AI is matter of conjecture.. Who knows.. Place your bets!!
I’m not sure people in the west are scared of China. I think it’s more so about the method in which they grew their economy. The downside for China’s model is the west can simply not buy their products except where required so there’s nothing to really be scared of.
What’s to be scared of anyway? Isn’t China a peaceful nation that abides by international law?
The PRC has land claims against almost every bordering country, which are many in number.
It does wolf warrior diplomacy, surreptitiously moves border posts, and so on.
It also pretends to abide by international treaties but when a ruling against their absurd claims in the South China Sea were refuted, they rejected the ruling.
In the age of AI it uses from the same playbook as Russia to sow discontent and create internal conflict within countries in Asia.
Let's start with the basics. Let's ban unlimited money from politics first (ban SuperPacs and return to 90s era political rules).
If rich people want to influence politicians, there should be hard caps on money and advertising.
There's nothing wrong in saying too much money is now destroying too much of the good parts of our country. Starting one step at a time is better than trying to build a massive reform that goes no where.
Once money in politics calms down, the next steps should become more obvious as the noise from the Billionaires no longer drown out our attention.
> If SDE is collapsing as a field, a whole bunch of people who thought their intelligence and credentials guaranteed them a comfortable life are in for a shock.
Even if we accept your precondition as true, that SWEs contain multitudes of smart people who will jump to other industries, I don't think the conclusion holds.
In the US at least, SWEs are among the most entrepreneurial industry members. They'll bring that attitude to whatever their new industry is. I think there will be an explosion of new startups in different areas, and we'll Jevons Paradox our way forwards.
South Korea would be an interesting point of comparison. High IQs, after-school tutoring, 70% of young people get degrees: result is a college wage premium of only 31% vs 54% average in the OECD
Price of human intelligence is going up actually, because there's ever-decreasing amount of it, and we've invented a cheap substitute that makes people even stupider.
Can you prove to me that the price of human intelligence is going up? At best it is as it always has been, intelligence in some fields is going up.
It's generally true that the rarer something is the more valuable that is, but only if there are enough potential buyers of the thing that can recognize it. If there is an ever-decreasing amount of intelligence there is probably an ever-increasing amount of stupidity - so will the stupid be smart enough to reward the intelligent with high paid positions?
What I suppose is actually that human intelligence will become more monetizable, by allowing those with it to better take advantage of their unrecognizable ability. But only if the interlocking systems of humanity do not fall apart and destroy the world due to there not being enough intelligent people left to make things work, as per various works of science fiction on the subject.
That's the issue. No one can really systematize "discovery".
How many "group thinkers", "creatives", "non-group thinkers", "nihilists", "anarchists", "contemplatives" in the last - say, 500 years, 5000 years, whatever - have been occasioned by the fall of an Apple? Or the fall of a branch? Or a leaf? Or what have you?
Why did it spark a new flame in the mind of Newton? Science can't explain. If we could, we'd teach everyone to be that sort of contemplative.
In schools there are massive changes. I was told that kids are more relaxed and care less about education and that the value of the smart kids, the know it all kids, is going down as more students can access Ai and they are not as helpless as they were when failing to tune in while in the class. The dynamics are changing and students are less suicidal too apparently because the pressure to deliver scholastically is going down because no one knows what the future holds and what will be valued.
I'd expect this to be temporary while the educational system figures out how to manage LLM-bolstered students.
The intern I worked with last year said her graduating class all felt like they were the last "real" graduates. Meaning: the class after her had less credibility in her eyes, having been presumed to have used AI to get past the "pons asinorum"/"bridge of asses".
That depends if there's still a demand for educated people. Doesn't matter how good they are for society - only how much demand there is. If there's no demand, the schools have no reason to change.
On the one hand, one really can't remove all of humanity from the economy. Humans are what makes the economy matter, and if you cut them all out, they'll just replace the economy with something else, call it "the economy", and move on. ("Butlerian Jihad" pivot, I suppose.)
On the other hand... I'm reminded of dock workers and the advent of container ships. The only way to handle that was to basically pay those workers a living wage for the rest of their lives to ... not work.
So... we have options, I guess!
[1] In Orson Welles's Time Machine, the eloi were the lazy "child-like" humans not challenged to grow intellectually.
I frequently have speculative conversations about what (good-leaning) post-AGI societies might look like.
When asked about how one might attain social mobility in such a society, where the intrinsic value of our intelligence and ability to do labor is gone, I unironically respond with "be hot".
some people think that's how humans got so intelligent. actually if you think about it, it's the only way humans could have got so intelligent. brains were our tail feathers for a while.
> Price of human intelligence is also falling rapidly.
Where?
What's your definition of "rapidly"?
I could see an argument for price of human intelligence going down - we're essentially in a global stagflation - which feels like a recession (sometimes moreso) even if it isn't technically one...
Rapidly? I think we have different definitions, or you're only looking in a niche.
I'd also argue that global stagflation doesn't yet have anything to do with AI. My crystal ball doesn't work. Things could change quickly. But I don't see any evidence now.
High priced intelligence is currently the doctors, engineers, professors, scientists, analysts, bankers, technical staff.. etc. Many are already replaceable with AI and many others sooner or later you know. In my opinion that is.
Talking pretty, too -- which takes some intelligence, but not too much. The era of the awkward nerd is over. The world is returning to its natural order, with the slimy salesman in the lead.
If human intelligence stops being the trait that propels one up the socioeconomic ladder, it will not be good looks that takes its place. The ability to project physical force will become currency. This is why AI could cause civilized societies to completely unwind.
Have you seen their wives with lip and cheek injections lately? I am not saying that they are pretty by old standards; to each their own.. it is a new standard of beauty in the age of Ai I suppose; mass transformation of beauty standards is a thing..
Belief system is not ownership of other people's bodies. It is the believers who have to reject their religious hagiarchy claim of ownership of their bodies and then religion can remain like the rest of them without these clauses.
Impressive you know. They are a few months behind but still the world uses their models. Bet you because the users suspect that Americans will pull the rug from under them. Few months behind versus being left behind forever. Would have been nice to know the differences in spending between the models but I suspect the data is impossible to collect.
It's not a suspicion, it has actually happened. US government briefly banned Fable for non-americans, and the american corporations pick and choose who has access to their unrestricted models which in practice excludes even american citizens, to say nothing of foreigners like myself.
They are literally segmenting the world into haves and have-nots, just like nuclear power. Thank god China is out there and constantly undermining them with their non-stop open weights model releases.
The best situation for us mere mortals is one where they struggle against each other endlessly without any hope of victory. The second either the US or China wins, it's pretty much over for us and unimaginable oppression will quickly follow.
That’s certainly part of it. I think people underestimate the value of getting to ‘good enough’. Once that’s reached, the economics start to be more of a factor in decision making.
However, I think geopolitics has also become a factor as the very existence of this article indicates.
This is the real answer. Nature only cares that the old already mixed their genes. So, from an evolutionary biology perspective, it's good to clear out the old stock at the end of every generation. Nature already got whatever it was gonna get out of us at that point. To allow that set of genes to stick around actually yields negative returns, ie - less chance of producing improvements, at that point. (Again, just from the perspective of "Mother Nature" so to speak. Obviously the animals themselves would rather not die.)
Mother nature has no perspective. There are no improvements either, only things that are and are not. Everything is dependent on local context at the present point in time and framing whether it is "good" or "bad" (e.g. one could frame our intelligence as good or bad given how it resulted in anthropocentric climate change that may doom us in time, while 'dumber' species have existed for millions of years without wiping themselves out).
What works today may not work tomorrow. What didn't work yesterday may work today. Evolution is not linear. It tends to happen in bursts almost like a dam busting loose. A constant cycling between periods of genetic diversity (i.e. big resetting just happened, no winners taking all quite yet), and what is known as allele fixation (a winner emerged, oh god no...).
>What works today may not work tomorrow. What didn't work yesterday may work today.
All the more reason for variety. Which stops happening when only one set of genes is mixing. (Assuming that set of eternal genes would have any motivation to mix at all.) If you want a higher chance at producing the genes most resilient in a given context, aging and death are a necessary part of that process if you're stuck with sexual reproduction. You need motivation, and you need maximum mixing.
When US claims to not need Canada, it really means USA needs countless other sources instead as demoed here. Not to forget that if USA purchases potash from another source, some other entity has to buy the potash from Canada but US has to pay more for the shipping. Bragging about it is even more hilarious. It is like admitting defeat.
Ai can be that somebody with exquisite taste and it can probably tell a good novel versus a bad one. It can also figure if an idea is unique or generic. I can understand Ai as a paying consumer. Generic stuff: $5.. superb: $100k.. That way quality of human writing can be appreciated at least by some entity since many humans will eventually give up.
Alas, at present, AI mostly serves to fill my email folder with vapid praise that clumsily restates the back-of-the-book blurb and then tries to get me to give someone else money for dubious (nonexistent) marketing services.
reply