Comment Isn't that unconstitutional? (Score 1) 45
Can congress really pass laws that selectively apply to specific corporations and individuals? If corporations are people then doesn't the 14th also apply to corporations? Why just TikTok?
Can congress really pass laws that selectively apply to specific corporations and individuals? If corporations are people then doesn't the 14th also apply to corporations? Why just TikTok?
because the claim isn't that propellentless requires no energy it's that if you are given a propellentless drive, you can construct a machine which outputs more energy than is required to run it
Energy is conserved in aggregate. The sum. One component of kinetic energy is of course not conserved
The rocket ship thing you refer to is precisely not what I'm talking about. It gets even more fun with the Oberth effect, but energy is still conserved. When you start at rest, the huge amount of chemical energy all winds up in the reaction mass flying out the back. At very high velocities, you're essentially exchanging kinetic energy between the reaction mass and rocket.
You are assuming momentum is not conserved and then making inferences based on that assumption when there is no reason to have jumped to the conclusion in the first place.
You cannot do the Oberth effect trick without reaction mass.
That effect requires you to use something to accelerate the rocket and it's reaction mass up to a high speed.
I'm not referring to Oberth:
"Motion in space can be accomplished without thrust or external forces."
https://web.mit.edu/wisdom/www...
I disagree, because the claim isn't that propellentless requires no energy it's that if you are given a propellentless drive, you can construct a machine which outputs more energy than is required to run it. This means a propellentless drive is equivalent to a perpetual motion machine, so since the latter cannot exist, the former cannot as well.
Just because there is no propellant does not mean momentum is not conserved.
Assume you have a drive that produces 1N per Watt of power with no propellant. Basically, 1W goes in, 1N of force comes out by unexplained physics.
After 1 seconds, the kinetic energy will be
After 10 seconds, the kinetic energy will be
After 100 seconds, then k.e. will be 5000J, after expending only 100J to power it. That's bad.
Kinetic energy is not conserved. It's a relative quantity.
Why does my rocket ship have such shit efficiency when it is just blasting off but much later the same thrust gives me a shit ton more kinetic energy even though my rocket ship has lost mass? This is essentially what you are saying is "bad".
While TFA is obviously crackpottery people don't know what they don't know. For all anyone knows there could be a mechanism that allows things to push off of the 6th dimension or assorted invisible things in a similar way aircraft push off air. If this shit were possible you wouldn't have propellant being expended but there may well still be conservation of momentum and energy. It's just a matter of drawing a big enough box to properly account for it.
For example gravity gradients can be used for propulsion by changing the shape of an object during its orbit. There is no propellant but there is nothing magical going on either.
I'll be impressed when one of these ML engines is sophisticated enough to be able to say "I don't know" instead of just making up nonsense by stacking probabilistic sequences
For factual questions it is relatively easy to discern through iterative prompting most of the time but this comes at a higher overhead cost.
Will be interesting to try Mixtral 8x22B and llama3 70B... going to wait a few weeks for censorship removal, tuning and (franken)merges.
A llama3 400B would be crazy, looks meaningfully better than 70B from the evals but high cost... I hope they release it but that would be like a 200 GB model quantized and less than a token/sec saturating a quad channel system.
Every time I visit AI policy advocacy sites it's always a series of unsubstantiated opinions highly resistant to falsification.
We think itâ(TM)s very plausible that AI systems could end up misaligned: pursuing goals that are at odds with a thriving civilization.
AI is today being leveraged on an industrial scale to judge, influence and psychologically addict billions for simple commercial gain. As technology improves thing will only become worse especially as corporations pursuit global propaganda campaigns to scare the shit out of people in order to make them compliant to legislative agendas that favor the very same corporations leveraging AI against them today.
This could be due to a deliberate effort to cause chaos, or (more likely) may happen in spite of efforts to make systems safe.
How desperate does one have to be to cite ChaosGPT and still expect to be taken seriously?
While I can't speak for tomorrow today it is caused by deliberate selfish human pursuit of power.
If we do end up with misaligned AI systems, the number, capabilities and speed of such AIs could cause enormous harm - plausibly a global catastrophe.
It is also plausible a baby born today triggers a global catastrophe in the future. He or she could cause enormous harm.
If these systems could also autonomously replicate and resist attempts to shut them down, it would seem difficult to put an upper limit on the potential damage.
If they could take over nuclear arsenal and use those to blackmail humanity it would seem difficult to put an upper limit on the potential damage. Be especially concerned when message "WARN: THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM" flashes on the system console.
If these systems could convert humans into fusion reactors and place them into a simulated virtual world it would seem difficult to put an upper limit on the potential damage.
If an AI brings significant risk of a global catastrophe, the decision to develop and/or release it canâ(TM)t lie only with the company that creates it.
If you stipulate this is plausible then such risk is a function of the underlying enabling knowledge and industrial base not any actions of individual corporations or persons. In short if such a technology was within grasping distance you can bet someone somewhere will "create it" and you won't be able to do shit about it.
Whatever censorship and ideology is imparted on models to "align" with your sensibilities and values, whatever compliance tests you promulgate
If people truly subscribe to this x-risk bullshit at least be consistent and advocate for a total global ban of AI. That would at least slow down the technology. If there was no longer any major funding or work being done whatever goes on in the shadows at least won't have countless billions of dollars and millions of people toiling away in support of it.
Of course nobody will ever do that and nobody will ever advocate for it because these policy sites only exist to protect the financial interests of the corporations spreading this FUD. Banning AI is bad for business.
Don't private businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone?
Absolutely not. Private businesses are required to follow laws intended to balance competing interests. You necessarily lose some of your rights in exchange for the right to conduct public commerce. See also Marsh v. AL.
Sure, not quite that clear cut, but even in the use there are 20 years behind bars and a $500'000 fine on the line once certain conditions are met, for example "knows the person receiving the instruction intends to use it to commit a federal violent crime". Now, I understand that AI knows and understands nothing, but would you bet your freedom on a jury being able to understand that about AI?
Given you would need to affirmatively establish intent beyond a reasonable doubt absolutely I would.
When I heard the first 702 reauthorization vote failed.
Now that they are trying again and want to make reauthorization even worse is more in line with my expectations.
The battery technology used for these itself doesn't ignite or explode, unlike a cell phone's chemistry. For fires it's primarily the electrical risk, as I mentioned in my OP. And I already accept that risk with the high voltage DC for my solar array. The battery system I have uses inverters and the conduit around my home carries 240V AC and not DC. Unlike my older solar installation.
My comments assumed LFP because that's the chemistry that is most used and did not even mention batteries themselves igniting or exploding.
The DC commentary is about the battery to inverter circuits. DC current from PV is orders of magnitude less than what is available on the battery bus.
I had 20 days with partial or no power in 2022. And 13 in 2023. Without someone competent managing the centralized infrastructure there is little alternative.
Add on top that the changes in metering rules means I get pennies when I send my solar to the power company, but I pay dimes when I want to buy power back. From a cost perspective, storing energy for later is a no brainer.
If someone wants an ESS for backup or off-grid these are perfectly rational uses. Thinking the system is ever going to pay for itself or that it is in any way an environmentally responsible option is irrational.
I just got a battery installed. There is almost no fire risk. We're far more interested in the real risks like brush and electrical fires.
Most battery systems run at 48VDC or higher
The Internet is of course full of ESS and related component failures starting fires:
https://diysolarforum.com/foru...
Even if the individual risk of ESS is not high putting all of this high current gear piecemeal in homes is pointless and dumb. It will cause unnecessary avoidable increases in fires and loss of property/life for no reason. Far cheaper and safer to centralize these systems where they can be professionally maintained and monitored - where automatic heat/fire detection and suppression technologies are in place.
That is a pretty strange metric, I have to agree. Using that, my home probably outperforms the CA grid. It has produced 1520 kWh this month, and consumed 974 kWh during the same period. 1249 kWh were exported to the grid, and 702 kWh imported from the grid. The consumption during sunshine hours is just low. Most of it is afternoon, evening and nights. We have some north facing panels that produce until late, but it is a fraction of noon production
We don't have batteries but are on NEM2, so it still works out.
Producing more electricity than you can ever use with rooftop PV arrays in a given year is relatively cheap and easy in a huge chunk of the country at least in terms of material costs.
Unfortunately what is orders of magnitude more expensive is merely converting energy generated when convenient into energy available when needed. There simply isn't an economically feasible technology at present to enable that at required scales.
The saturation of energy market by intermittent renewables like PV and to a far lesser extent wind when their overall contribution is less than 30% (Intentionally leaving out hydro which adds another 10%) indicates the market will become increasingly distorted as share of intermittent renewables rise which translates into a practical market based caps on renewables. Nobody is going to spend money to build out more solar when the market is saturated with solar. It will likewise become increasingly expensive to operate nuclear and hydrocarbon burning plants as market saturation leads to a landscape where returns are not worth the capital expenditures.
The more countries limit innovation, the slower the world will move. Stifling a step towards AGI/ASI that would have otherwise been made in the UK is a good thing.
Corporate lobbying for legislation to protect their investments only leads to increased capital investments not less. Legislation accelerates rather than stifles technology by protecting investments from smaller competition.
It also significantly increases the chance of any futuristic sci-fi AI being successfully hoarded by corporations and governments aggregating power into increasingly fewer hands.
I see, so it is definitely his fault - some rando CNN reporter not raising his voice is what caused this. He needs arrested and jailed for murder of the astronauts.
NASA knew there was a strike - where do you think the image he saw came from? Russia, CNN's super high technology space Telescope? NASA knew of the strike - long before the CNN reporter. They did some sort of analysis analysis and determined incorrectly that it was not a problem.
What I said was "The point is by increasing publicity it may have received more attention and perhaps taken more seriously than NASA's practice of normalizing deviance." I find myself scratching my head how these sorts of conclusions can be drown from it.
1. Accountability != Responsibility. Miles is clearly not accountable for the disaster. He is responsible for doing his job as a reporter as he conveyed in his statement "I felt like it was my responsibility to mention the foam strike, to get the information out there to the public." He isn't saying the disaster was his fault or that he is accountable for it. He was talking about his responsibility - his role as a reporter. Not his responsibility as a TPS, rocket or forensic engineer... but as a reporter.
2. The issue of NASA's knowledge of the image is NOT at issue. The issue is what was done with the information. What type and quantity of resources were allocated to analysis as well as pursuit of other threads of information. A reporter asking questions and gathering more public awareness could have plausibly lit fires in management to allocate additional resources rather than falling back on normalizing deviance... this shit always happens, there is always TPS damage so we'll just assume this time will be no different.
Sheesh - is it so important for you to be contrary that you correct things that are already correct?
It matters to me. There is a difference between turning down offers of assistance and not bothering to ask for assistance. While they both yield the same result the fact you are actively refusing an offer is worse than not seeing fit to ask for help.
"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger
