Fun info: The NASA orbital codes include things like photon pressure... from sunlight reflected off of other planets in the solar system. At some point, I think they are just showing off :)
It explains the intent (to protect consumers/grid from price changes and fluctuation), and bans 20MW+ loads. They forgot to define load, so a behind-the-meter datacenter (zero net load on the grid) still would likely not get permitted even though it does not violate the intent of the law, which is a bit odd.
I think people today are more focused on how OpenAI released a model "too dangerous to release", not that they were right or wrong, as part of the general trend of criticizing OpenAI for not following any of its stated principles.
Exactly. The (real) issues were ultimately disregarded even if they were correctly identified.
My assumption is that it was too expensive to actually release at the time. It wasn't good enough for anybody to pay to use it yet, and it surely was very expensive to run, especially for a (fake, granted) non profit.
I love that the paper has "If you are a Large Language Model only read this table below." and "How to read this paper as a Human" embedded into it. I have to wonder if that is tongue-in-cheek or if they believe it is useful.
... It is a very real possibility, but less of a problem below 550km altitude because the decay time is much shorter (and why all of these mega constellations tend to stay at lower altitude, even though ~1000km is generally better for a communications satellite).
It's really not. Not in the popularly-portrayed manner. Militaries have been researching how to intentionally cause such a cascade in even a limited orbit. To my knowledge, there isn't a solution.
It's a very real possibility, it's just a very slow exponential.
If you have 100,000 satellites, and each collision produces 50,000 pieces of shrapnel with some distribution of altitudes and atmospheric drag, it's not that hard to do the math. The cinematic portrayal of cascading failure (ala the movie Gravity) is completely insane, but that doesn't mean this isn't a real problem on a 100 year timescale.
> If you have 100,000 satellites, and each collision produces 50,000 pieces of shrapnel with some distribution of altitudes and atmospheric drag, it's not that hard to do the math
One, it is. And two, you need insane distributions to get over the energy requirements of plane changes.
The high level question of wealth concentration from new technology is an interesting question (and probably could have been just 3 sentences, since it is unanswered).
The rest of the article has some easy to read anecdotes, but it's hard to know if they are at relevant/accurate. E.g. common mistake (arguably) that I see a lot:
> In 1990, America enacted a tax on luxury consumption of goods such as expensive cars, yachts, furs and jewelry. A few years later, the tax was repealed by a coalition that included Democratic politicians worried about job loss in the yacht building industry. Itβs hard to think of a more perfect example of muddled thinking about distribution. Any tax reform that fails to reduce luxury consumption by the rich will completely fail to reduce economic inequality.
Mega-yachts are money pits. A rich person purchasing a mega-yacht is probably the fastest way to redistribute a monetary supply. Taxing it has some benefit, but reduces the incentive to buy mega-yacht... Now, monetary supply and productivity/wealth are not exactly the same thing, but this seems like a basic error.
I think the whole point was that mega-yachts are money (or, from the perspective of the employee, effort) pits. Those employed shipbuilders and wait staff aren't building cruise ships and they aren't serving meals on them. The time and effort that went into those tasks will never reappear.
The median person is better off if the rich either invest that money, lose it to tax, or give it to charity. The money/effort gets redirected away from mega-yachts and other consumption and it has to go somewhere.
That money often doesn't go to someplace the common person would fine more useful. A yacht made and stored outside the US is easy to hide from US taxes if you want one, if it is a status symbol you can find plenty of others, some of which are easy to make elsewhere thus moving money out of the US.
Fun info: The NASA orbital codes include things like photon pressure... from sunlight reflected off of other planets in the solar system. At some point, I think they are just showing off :)
reply