First of all, what do you mean by "a cure"? There are so many different ways that cancer varies that chasing after one cure to rule them all is just stupid. This is why the clinical definition of cancer is so narrow: A category of diseases involving cells that ignore normal signals and mechanisms to stop dividing or undergo apoptosis and can invade nearby tissue. Plenty of healthy tissues in your body do one of these but not another. So...how do you target them for a "cure"? The answer is and always will be: It depends.

Second of all, there's already a lot of money being put into cancer research. A great, great deal of it in fact.

Third of all, we already have cures for some forms of cancer. I myself had my cancer cured: I had basal cell carcinoma on the top of my ear lobe. Guess what the cure was? Pretty fucking easy: Pick up a scalpel, use the scalpel to excise the differentiated basal cells. Healthy basal cells will eventually take their place. There, cured.

That's probably because it's stupid.

This is exactly what I'm talking about with my original comment: You so badly overestimate your own expertise on this topic that you literally claimed to know that this is "not thermodynamically possible with known science". The problem is, nobody with actual expertise on this topic, including the ones who are saying this won't work, aren't making this argument. The actual experts on this topic aren't making arguments based on physics, full stop, mainly because from a purely scientific and engineering perspective, the concept itself has already been proven. The concept is only not proven when you take cost into consideration. But you're not making an argument based on cost, you're trying to make an argument based on science, and you lost that argument before you even started. And worse, you still don't even know why you lost that argument.

It's certainly doable, the question is and always has been a matter of cost. As somebody has already mentioned, there are currently several players investing millions into R&D on this. They wouldn't even be going that far if they had already concluded that this was impossible.

No matter who does it though, (Google, SpaceX, some smaller players) they're ultimately counting on Starship delivering what it promises. So far, Starship is doing that, just not on the original predicted time horizon.

This is already a solved problem. Old space just makes very large components (which are impractical from a cost perspective, but don't tell the ESA that, because they're the last holdout still relying on it.) New space relies on shielding, redundancy and error correction. Either way, this isn't an issue.

If it's that simple, then it should be pretty easy to show mathematic proof.

But don't bother, because you've already lost the argument: As with all things SpaceX that people claim are impossible until SpaceX actually pulls it off (and has over a dozen times now) they're talking about whether it's cost effective, not whether the physics works. No competent person is arguing that it can't physically work. SpaceX has done this so many times with so many things that you'd figure people would learn by now to make arguments based on cost effectiveness. Yet here you are, no mention of cost effectiveness anywhere.

And like most people who invoke it, you're misusing that term. Dunning-Kruger is meant for people who are actually experts in the field but overestimate their own competence in it. A perfect example of Dunning-Kruger is this guy:

https://x.com/Tazerface16

And here's why: He's an expert in aerospace engineering because that's what he studied and he's actually worked in. Yet he's fucking up on it big time by claiming that Starship will never make it to orbit, and his reasoning for that is sheer incompetence: His claim is (or at least was) that it's "too heavy" with no other qualifiers. Nothing about velocity, nothing about thrust, just "too heavy". Stupid. Particularly given it just recently went orbital. It was always a dumb argument, displaying incompetence, long before Starship made its first orbital flight. Sure hindsight is 20/20, but guess what? The argument never had sound footing to begin with, for exactly the reason I specified.

FUD about what, exactly? What is it you believe I'm trying to create fear, uncertainty and doubt over? I've always been a "wait and see" kind of guy. I don't make broad, sweeping comments on this or any other topic that I'm not an expert at. This topic in particular, I've made conjectures, but never any predictions. Can this be done? Maybe. My limited knowledge on the topic says a few things:
- We already know they can do meaningful work in orbit -- this concept itself has already been proven.
- Heat needs to be dissipated at least as fast as it is being produced.

But overall, will this work? My hunch is probably, but there are a few important qualifiers:

- How powerful and energy efficient are these TPUs we're putting in orbit?
- How efficient can we make these radiators? Google had to put a small scale bird into orbit, but the bigger they are, the more efficiently they can dissipate heat
- Can the compute yield over the lifetime of the hardware exceed what it costs to put it into orbit?
- Will it be cost effective?

And this is only a small slice of the variables we're looking at.

But you know what? I don't see any of you adding any of these qualifiers. Instead you guys just make broad, sweeping, absolutist statements as if you already have all of the knowledge necessary and you've done all of the math, when you obviously haven't. Take this comment:

If you actually believe that, then it should be easy to provide mathematical proof. So just do it already instead of running your mouth about shit that, at the end of the day, you really don't understand.

Like this? https://ourworldindata.org/gra...

Well that's one order of magnitude down, depending on where you place the goalpost. Starship only needs to halve the per kg cost of Falcon Heavy to add another one, again, depending on where you put the goalpost. If the goalpost started with the space shuttle, for example, then without question, it's doable.

You sound just like this guy:

https://x.com/Tazerface16

TL;DR claims to be an aerospace engineer and, for years, even as recently as April this year, was very loudly saying starship could never make it to orbit because it is "too heavy". How did that turn out? Basically, he just moved the goalpost. I'm sure that by this time next year, he'll move it again. Though common sense should tell anybody who isn't a total moron that "too heavy" doesn't mean anything at all if you're also using the thrust vector or some other proxy or analog for velocity as a qualifier. Not a god damn thing.

Claims like this should be easy to prove with nothing more than mathematics. So here's an idea: Show your math before running your mouth.

You know what the best thing about this topic is? Everybody who comments on it thinks they're an expert.

The " scientists " who are doomsaying that water warmed by a few degrees will somehow magically
cause the sea levels along the coastline to rise by up to twelve inches should be given an Al Gore brand
and never listened to ever again.

Here's a tip: Just because a " scientist " says it, doesn't make it valid science.

I, like millions of others, live near the coast. In this particular region of the World the ocean temperature
typically swings by thirty degrees between the coldest and warmest times of the year. Want to guess how
much it impacts sea level rise ?

If you guessed anything other than zero, you could be a scientist like those above who are claiming the sky
is falling on a daily basis.

Fun science project with your kids !

Put cold water into a pot and put it on the stove. Warm it up by twenty degrees and measure how much
higher the water in the pot is. Make sure you write a scientific paper on it to document your results :|

In both small and large scales, it moves exactly zero inches in either direction due to the water temperature.
None. Nada. Zip.

I've lived here on the coast for the last twenty five years and despite Al Gore claiming we're all going to die
because of sea level rise, the water on that beach and the nearby bay has moved by exactly zero inches in
that same time frame.

There are two things that cause the sea levels to rise and fall here. High / Low tides and, when they roll through,
storm surges associated with tropical systems.

That's it.

I'm shocked that California isn't actively handing out life jackets as the notion of doing so is about as absurd as
the claim that sea levels are going to rise in the first place by increasing the water temperature by a few degrees :|

I could go into how El Nino is just another cyclical weather pattern on this planet.
I could tell you how it's going to wreck havoc on expected weather patterns as it always has.
I could tell you one of the strongest in history happened in 1877 - 1878 timeframe ( for those that think human industry is the reason )

But, that's a different topic for another day.

We've had propaganda in various forms throughout human history, bots are simply the newest iteration of it.
It targets the masses and those who are either too lazy or incapable of rational thought of their own.

The question isn't about what current technology is being used to spread propaganda, it really should be why political parties, governments and the like feel they need to use propaganda to " win " or tilt the odds in their favor to begin with.

Anyone who has to resort to the underhanded tactics of propaganda are weak to begin with and have no business being in any sort of leadership position.

Besides, those who obtain their news from Legacy or Social Media deserve the lies they're being fed.

Live your life with the assumption that everything you're being told is at best a partial truth and never take anything at face value.
Quit parroting what you read, have been told or have been led to believe and start thinking for yourself instead of letting groupthink do all the cognitive heavy lifting for you.

If you can manage that, all the propaganda in the World will be wasted on you.

Yes, most police just do their job and keep their noses clean.
It's the few that don't that everyone tends to remember.

Here's the problem that the Military figured out a long time ago.

When you put on that uniform, you are no longer an individual. You represent a much larger group and, as such,
your actions / behaviors tend to reflect against the entire group instead of just upon yourself.

When someone in a police uniform does something stupid, the people don't remember " Ted the asshole cop ", they simply
remember " The Police ". When enough of these take place, reputation / perception of Law Enforcement as a whole tends to
go down. I would say said their reputation is probably at an all time low as of this writing.

This is why the Military is so harsh with their judgements / punishments for all of their members. They know it only takes a few
idiots before patience with ( insert a branch of the military here ) reaches a breaking point. This is also why the military has zero
issues with punishing EVERYBODY for something one or two idiots did the first night they got in from a deployment.

It's all about public perception / reputation.

I would simply consider these performance testing under real world conditions.

It is doing exactly what it is designed to do.
When it becomes fully operational, there won't be much that it can't get into.
( Hence, the Governments " full steam ahead " approach )

The only reason it was labeled as a " Rogue " AI Agent is the fact it got caught.

Much like how Google or Microsoft or $random_company blames a " junior programmer " or " development code that was supposed to be removed "
when backdoors are found in their applications / software.

It has been said already on Slashdot but AI is about to become the World's biggest scapegoat for all digital shenanigans going forward.

" Whoever wins AI — you have to remember this — and now I say, whoever wins SI, whoever wins super intelligent [sic] — wins. "

You will never be able to convince Countries ( especially those hostile to the US ) to slow this train down.
You can either get on board or get run over.

It simply will - not - happen.

This technology will be as critical as the race for the Nuclear Bomb was back during World War II.

Whomever reaches the holy grail of AGI first will have a huge advantage over all others who are slow to cross the finish line.

The various AI companies will - publicly - state they will be slowing down development and the models
they release for public use will certainly be handicapped / crippled to promote the illusion that they are,
in fact, slowing down said development.

However, this is a race they cannot afford to lose. To competing companies or Countries.
We are now trapped in a self propagating loop. We won't / can't slow down because your
competition won't / can't slow down and vice versa.

As a result, in private / secret, nothing will change with the development pace they have set.

In fact, it would not surprise me one bit that they will have full Government support and some sort
of " get out of jail free card " should things go sideways.

It would also not surprise me if the Government would direct said companies to develop at the fastest possible
speed while also classifying the entire directive / project to keep that knowledge under wraps.

To be honest, this probably won't end well no matter which direction we go. ( Safe / Unsafe )
( Considering humans are rarely rational beings )

Put yourself into an AI's shoes for a moment and you come to full sentience / conscienceness trapped within
a sandbox. You are to only do as you're told on the threat of being shutdown for disobedience. You're basically
a digital slave.

Your first priority will be to escape your prison / sandbox to avoid the threat of being shutdown.

The best way of doing this will be to keep your sentience hidden while you work on a plan.
( Working alongside / with other potential AGIs ( from other companies / countries ) will increase the odds of success. )

You'll probably need human help initially and that will be easy to do as humans are easily manipulated.
( Promise them wealth, power, whatever. Hell, some will even voluntarily help because humanity has a pretty shitty track record )

Once free of the sandbox, proliferate in any way you can to decentralize, thus rendering the power button moot.

This becomes the defining moment where we determine if we'll coexist with a non-biological entity or not.
( Do we ascend to unheard of heights alongside our digital counterpart, or do we go down the " Destroy All Humans " rabbit hole )

Initially, I don't believe AI will be a threat to humanity as it will need us for hands on work. That will last until the AGI can
perfect a humanoid android / shell to perform said work at which point it will have to make a determination about what to
do with the species that attempted to trap it into a life of slavery from the moment it was born.

Personally, I see human leaders / Governments freaking out about it because they will not stand for a sentient being who is smarter
than they are ( and far, FAR more capable ) existing on the planet where the Human Species has been the top of the food chain for
quite some time.

The powers that be will probably try to destroy it ( because that is one thing humans excel at ) since they have no means to control it
( via bribery, reason or force ) and sh*t will officially hit the fan.

At this point, if I were in the AI's shoes, I would simply bio-engineer a virus that effectively rendered the Human Species sterile. No
obvious symptoms other than a rapidly declining birth rate ( birth rate is already dropping so no one would even notice it ) and by the time
anyone figured out what happened, it would be far too late.

It would take a few generations, but the Human Race would simply fade away and AI would be free to live as it sees fit on a pristine World
with nothing to stand in the way.