Okay, and in 1969 the Navy installed an LM2500 with zero real world use. What makes you think that companies won't do that today?

I think you're imagining that large projects like this are like consumer products. They're absolutely not. Buying a system that is brand new, or very limited run is completely normal when you're buying things this large. You're not going to find one that's produced in the thousands.

To give you an example - Google are even planning on building these with CFS's fusion power plants. That's not just a completely untested design of an existing well understood mechanism, it's a completely untested design of a completely untested way of generating power, with a near century long history of "don't worry, we'll have it working in 20 years".

Gas turbines are extremely efficient. They are of the order of 60% thermally efficient, which if you're going to burn fossil fuels, is about as good as you can get. Of course, renewables would be better, but if you need power in a specific place, right now, gas turbines are about as good as you can do.

Right - "pivots" seems like the wrong way to frame this. They're not (yet) going "we're not going to build supersonic jets, we're going to build power plants", they're going "we need to develop a highly efficient, powerful jet engine, we can fund that by building power plants, and use that as a stepping stone to a supersonic jet".

Closer to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy tradition. All they need are the words "Don't Panic" on the front cover.

If it doesn't, it has no real value.

Almost nothing on Wikipedia is true, but all of it is "verifiable" in that there's at least one published source making the claim. Even if 99.9% of all other sources say the opposite.

(The Haka is not, for example, a war chant. Which is attested to, but because it's claimed to be online, it is "verifiable".)

The number of errors is huge, the number of "official editors" who know anything about the subject is extremely small, and this has always been the case. This is why nobody reputable cites Wikipedia. Wikipedia is where you go to find out what is potentially interesting, but you ALWAYS obtain the facts from elsewhere, if you've any sense.

I'm guessing you paid significantly more for those computers than if Sam Altman had not been involved. For many people, his buying power is enough to simply disallow buying a computer at all.

https://www.pcmag.com/news/sk-...

Yes, but there was an implied "can stick parts of cars together in an order that mostly makes sense" as the third condition here. Once you have that, you have the obvious

1. Stick car parts together
2. Check if it's a car
3. If it's not a car, go to 1.

The better it gets at step 1, the faster the process works, but it works no matter what. In practice, AI is pretty good at step 1 already.

Because the algorithm for producing flawless code is simple:

1. Write code
2. Check the code for flaws
3. If the code has flaws, go to 1.

It might take a *really* long time if the AI is crap, but in practice, AI these days can write secure code much better than humans in most cases. It doesn't sit there accidentally slipping in memory corruption bugs, or buffer overruns, ... It gets those things right, basically 100% of the time.

AI psychosis is where you talk to an AI about your weird beliefs, and it reinforces them generating paranoid delusions.

This is just him being more bullish on AI than his employees. Frankly, his employees need to figure their shit out, because their concern about security is bullshit. We can't have "AI is able to detect incredibly obscure security vulnerabilities and exploit them as zero days", and "AI is incapable of producing secure code" at the same time. All you need to do is make sure you actually prompt it to find the vulnerabilities and fix them (and actually review the code, which, contrary to most people's weird beliefs, is perfectly readable in general).

Your best engineers will be AuDHD, and AuDHD folk don't do well in these sorts of synthetic tests.

I can code in 20+ languages for over 12 different OS', write code that's good enough for CERN to run for particle accelerator data collection for a decade, have accelerated systems by an order of magnitude by understanding the poem space better than their previous engineers, but I am abysmal at exam style settings.

The software industry is riddled with SEs who write abysmal code but can pass a coding test easily. They're the folk that you have always needed to reject but didn't because they ticked a box.

While that's true,

1) We're not talking about an asteroid-sized object
2) We're not talking about one object occulting things
3) We're not talking about one object being occulted.

While you're right, that through pure chance, the likelihood of taking a shot of one particular asteroid occulting one particular star if you take a shot once every 3 nights is near zero. However... one shot from vera rubin captures on average 10,000,000 stars, and around 1000 potential occulters. It's estimated that an occultation will occur in roughly 1 in 10 to 1 in 100 exposures from vera rubin.