Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Bet against Elon if you like (Score 0) 165

The "you're stupid" above is indeed a mild ad hominem and could have been rephrased.

No, it literally is not an ad hominem in absolutely any sense whatsoever, period. If you think otherwise, you may or may not be stupid, but you're definitely ignorant. I could have phrased it some other way, if I were trying to be dishonest, but that is not what I do. I'm not here to be nice about shit ideas which ennoble or enrich shit people, nor to coddle their enablers.

Ad hominem means insult from a person. It is an argument that an argument is false because a certain person made it. It literally does not matter whether an insult is involved, although it can be. The fact that you're issued moderation points for a site like Slashdot when you're so eager to be so fundamentally wrong about what something means is utterly pathetic. This is exactly why moderation should be public, so people can know whether it means anything, or it was executed by someone who has no fucking idea what they're on about. This is also why moderation is and always has been fundamentally broken on Slashdot. Posting and moderating in the same discussion isn't allowed, but the people who are most qualified to moderate are also the people who are most qualified to comment.

I also note that you failed to understand the part about comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage, with your comical focus on insult when that is not even the core of what ad hominem even is. It's especially amusing that you quoted that section in light of your inability to understand either thing.

Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

Comment Spot on... (Score 4, Interesting) 58

reject any AI-generated text in human-to-human communications, saying it's "a basic principle of respect"

I cannot agree more with this sentiment. It feels outright insulting to asked to read LLM output in a context where it is *supposed* to be human feedback. Tell me what you would have told the LLM to say, I can take it from there. I don't need you to LLM it up, because it will bury your point in a bunch of crap.

Could it provide useful info? Maybe, but I can do that myself if so. I want *your* thought on something, however incomplete it might be.

Comment Something to consider (Score 2) 165

The only way you can lose heat in space is through radiation. But radiation carries momentum. Not much per photon, but it was enough to cause the Pioneer probes to move in unexpected ways. This means you have to emit equal amounts of heat towards Earth and towards space. If your resultant is zero, then you're fine. You can even direct some of the heat backwards. It won't do a huge amount, but every bit of atmospheric drag you overcome, the less fuel you need to use to stay in orbit.

So you basically need absolutely gigantic radiators behind the space-based data centre, located inside a parabolic dish that will generate drag of its own (not to mention a potential difference betwen the lower and upper sections).

This is an insane level of complexity. You're better off parking it in a stable orbit between the Earth and the moon, so it's absolutely clear of atmospheric effects. You're still going to need radiators, but it's marginally better as you don't have to do quite so much directing of it. The latency would be horrible, maintenance would be next to impossible, and there's all kinds of other issues to consider.

No, I don't think you can make this workable.

However, space might be useful. This very same issue of heat only being radiated means that you can make wafers with much more even loss of temperature, no dust, bacteria, or dirt, and much lower gravity. If you were to make extremely high quality wafers (silicon or gallium arsonide) in space, then you should be able to make WSI processors, which should in turn reduce the demands that datacentres make.

The time it would take to set all this up would be about the same time as it took for IBM to perfect its stacked transistor topology. Intel was talking 90 cores per wafer-scale CPU a few years back - the shrinkage in transistors since then plus the x10 density IBM proposes might push you to 1800 cores per wafer, provided you can get the quality high enough. Which, in space, is quite possible.

You wouldn't need your datacentres in space. Your wafer-scale CPU plus packaging would be about the same size as a CD drive. You could pretty much dispense with datacentres at that point. A typical tower will have two spare bays. "Cartridge datacentres" could simply be plugged in as needed. A regular CPU-based cartridge for heavy general-purpose computing, a GPU-based cartridge for LLMs. Yes, home users would have power usage through the roof, but then it's no longer your problem.

Comment Re:Bet against Elon if you like (Score 3, Insightful) 165

All the Elon haters

If you don't hate Elon after what he did to USAID, which has killed thousands abroad elsewhere and also resulted in the screwworm showing up here, you're stupid.

You're going to look at what are the most practical workloads for space AI, what are the most efficient chips for those workloads in terms of tokens per Watt.

Fine words from someone who has done neither.

And so on and so forth - it's called engineering.

What you're doing is called simping.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so." -- Artemus Ward aka Charles Farrar Brown

Working...