It's not just a knowledge and effort thing. New Shepard is 20,6t dry mass. Falcon 9 is 22,2t dry mass and could lift an entire New Shepard to LEO using 5 times the delta-V. It's such a different difficulty level that they're not even playing the same game; New Shepard is just a carnival ride.

Meaningful things in space are not like this, they're like this. Getting "to space" is the easy part - the X15 got "to space" just by going fast and then steering up. It's orbital velocity and the energies involved that are the hard part.

I have no idea how to log into ChatPGT and even less interest in giving it my details to sell. I don't see any reason to use it.

As in previous decades, the option exists of composing your own code, asserting that it is your own composition, making that declaration and submitting it as code for an Open Source project under those terms. If it's your composition, you're OK ; if you're a thieving liar (viz, someone who uses AI and claims it as their own work), then you've every chance of being proved wrong, in public, in front of a jury of your peers. Which for most is more daunting than being proved wrong in a court of law.

The possibility exists of your code duplicating someone else's. It did in 1980, and it does today. But obviously, your own work exists in your own archives in the context of whatever else you've been doing, and your genuine coincidence will most likely show in your wider context. If you've a reputation worth protecting. But if you're a thieving liar ... well, your professional reputation is going to go down the pan to the septic tank where it will stay.

Your choice. It's your reputation to destroy. If you're willing to risk it by using AI to generate strings which you then represent as your own work, well, it's your reputation.

In one of those attacks of hilarious coincidence the internet is prone too, while opening several tabs to reply to these Slashdot comment, another tab was following a different (vague) interest, and exposed a "faker" of a content writer :

Theyâ(TM)re very easy to apply, requiring only a thorough degreasing before application. For fun I compared the finish from two Brownellâ(TM)s cold bluing products: You did not provide any text to rewrite. Please provide the text to proceed. Dicropan T-4

(from this page ; no emphasis or modification - that's what he posted). Obviously, that is a source that inspires zero confidence. The "author" has shat all over any carefully curated reputation he (or his employers) had in the field. Typical result of using AI - severe footshot. If he has a Boss, this so-called "writer" will be getting his P-45.

Almost nobody in the indie AI community cares about whether the training data for the model is open source. We care about the license restrictions on the model. We can re-finetune or further train a foundation however we want, the question is, what we're allowed to do with it.

A lot of people just ignore the licenses, but that can come back to bite you, and I don't recommend it.

Prove that whatever AI you used wrote that, as opposed to copying it from elsewhere. Which seems to be precisely the point you want to emphasise, but you're missing the point of proving it. I assert that your example is actually copied from somewhere. Prove me wrong.

That's "prove" in the mathematical sense - not the limp version of the word that lawyers use.

I can't say I understand the musical analogy, but for any particular language you should be able to work out the number of possible programmes for a set code length. Elimination of duplicates would be the hardest bit, but the branching of syntax diagrams quickly gets to pretty large numbers of possible programmes. "Large" as in, combinatorial numbers rather than science's small number exponential notation.

Regardless of which, a significant part of your job as code-submitter remains to prove that the code you claim responsibility for is unique, that you own the copyright to it, and to assign the project you're submitting it to. Same as it was when Richard Stallman coded with a hammer, chisel and slabs of granite. Whether you use Vi or Alt-Ctrl-SysReq-Emacs doesn't matter, but you retain responsibility for the code and it's license.

if the lawyers sniff around too closely.

I think you mean

A subtle difference, I grant, and I'm quite cynical about lawyers in general. But in this case, that is their job, and they're doing it.

Unlike people who post tainted code whose license they have chosen to not investigate and determine if it's acceptable to the place the code is being submitted to.

Did ChatGTP tell you where it copied that from? And the license it was published under (which could be "no re-use without BigCorp Prior written permission", and ChatGPT has already illegally copied it.

As NetBSD say, this is presumed "tainted" until proven clean. As the person submitting it, you are the one required to prove it clean. Not them. It's your job, as the submitter.

I struggle to see where the difficulty is, unless you object to actually doing your job as a code-submitter.

Jevons Paradox chuckles: "Good luck with that."

That's the old model; papers are peer reviewed before publication. Unfortunately, reviewing papers is unpaid volunteer work that really doesn't give you any noticeable benefit to your career. It works by the fact that people do, in fact, want to help out, but now the system is oversaturated with junk papers, and the volunteer peer review system can't keep up.

You've spent now spent two days responding to my post saying "I don't want to discuss this" telling me that you want me to discuss this.

I understand why so many women choose the bear.

So we can conclude you hadn't actually looked at the data before you posted.

However, in response to your new post, which also lacks any sort of data:

Turns out we can measure the infrared absorption of carbon dioxide. It's not a theory, it's a measurement.

Temperatures do drop drastically during the hour of so of a solar eclipse, but we know that's not controlling climate because the number of eclipses per year hasn't changed. And, you know that we measure solar output.

Solar flares have not been shown to affect temperature on the Earth. They do look impressive in photos.

Don't live in the US, but still, that sort of a cash dump into the industry would have global implications and really boost the demand for people who have experience with AI.

Yep. If Hawking is right, black holes don't live forever.

I think the large majority of astrophysicists accept this. Not because it's Hawking's idea, but because his arguments are solid.

The second point - that the impact of the CMB (and "local" conditions) on a BH's event horizon will mean that BHs with a mass above a certain limit (and so, effective temperature of their event horizon below a certain value) are not shrinking at the moment, while smaller BHs are shrinking (by radiating into the CMB and their local conditions) is also, I think, generally accepted, but the position of that limit may be less sure. In particular, a BH with, say, a galaxy centre in it's sky is going to have a complex absorbtion/ emission integral over it's surface. Which leaves a lot of room for argument.

We're both old enough to remember when the decay of Primordial Black Holes (PBHs) was proposed as a solution to the problem of gamma-ray bursts. And the long arguments that entailed - is the distribution isotropic because they're very local, and the thousand LY range to the edge of the galactic disc takes us beyond their detectability range, or are they isotropic because they're far outside the galaxy and very rare per cubic gigaparsec per year. We're seeing the same arguments regurgitated, but with PBHs playing the role of "dark matter candidates" this time, instead of GRB progenitors.

I agree that PBHs are interesting ideas ("provocative" is the word I used when considering the recent analysis of the idea that the Sun contains a PBH. See https://wellsite-geologist.blo..., discussing https://arxiv.org/pdf/2312.076... "Is there a black hole in the center of the Sun?".), but being an interesting, or provocative, idea doesn't mean that the idea represents a real object. Stephen Jay Gould introduced me to the word "reification" when he was undermining the reification of the "intelligence quotient" in his "Mismeasure of Man" book, back in the early 1980s - and it's an important concept to remember. It's also a self-reifying idea - which should be up there with self-defeating prophecies.