Perhaps, but I suspect Starlink (etc) already fills most of that use-case, and for the rest, they'll want that compute to be physically located inside the drones themselves, because otherwise the drones will be susceptible to jamming or spoofing.

There will be jobs that AI can't do. How many? Enough to keep 5-10 billion humans employed? What makes you so sure there will be?

Clearly AI has progressed considerably over the last 5-10 years. It's anyone's guess how much further it will progress -- maybe it'll plateau right where it is now, or maybe it will keep becoming more powerful as better algorithms are discovered. I'm not qualified to predict that, and neither are you, but the AI people certainly seem bullish about it.

Sorry, I thought you would understand that I meant that the resources that money represents appear, once you've solved the automation problems that currently make mass-production difficult. That's why you can buy a pocket computer today for $300 that would have your cost you billions of dollars twenty years ago, if you could have obtained it at all.

I bet you'd have more interesting conversations if you made a good-faith effort to understand what the other person was saying, rather than just jumping straight to the part where you get to throw insults at them and tell them how dumb they are. Doesn't that get boring?

I have yet to hear of a remotely plausible business case for putting data centers into space. The only benefit is 24/7 solar power, but that benefit is more than offset by the cost of launching everything into orbit, plus the cost of keeping everything properly cooled, plus the cost of radiation-hardening everything, and finally the cost of maintaining hardware in space (or, more likely, the cost of periodically having to write off the entire investment and build and launch new replacement hardware).

Unless Musk is trying to corner the market for AI-generated kiddie-porn (or something similarly illegal that needs to be operated beyond the reach of Earthly authorities), his ground-based competitors will undercut his pricing by a factor of 100, and he therefore won't have a viable product to sell.

Certainly new categories of work will emerge. The question is, will hiring and paying human beings be the most economically efficient way to fill those new positions, or will those jobs be done by AIs instead?

Previous waves of automation allowed people to move "up the food chain" and do jobs the machines still couldn't do, which was fine (at least, for the people capable of doing the new jobs), but if we get to the stage where there aren't many jobs left that the machines can't do, then we're out of luck -- it's unlikely that our tech-bro overlords are going to hire people simply on humanitarian grounds, if they can get an unquestioning machine to do the same work cheaper.

I agree that UBI is unlikely, but only because the billionaires don't like sharing and therefore won't support it. The money does "just appear" when you have mass automation doing the work to make it appear, but it will go into Bezos' checking account, not to the general public.

Yes, and that's the problem for Disney -- theme parks can only physically accept so many people per year, and they can't (easily) build more of them. So theme parks can't be more than a small amount of their total income; to really make the big money, the Mouse has to ship products that can and will be purchased by everyone. In practice, that means movies; ideally good movies, but at a minimum, popular movies.

They ignored it because they had so many other alarms. This is a general problem of an ideal scenario to present all information, and the crew should figure out the exact problem and solve it. The real world creates information overload in a stressful situation and the crew cannot process the correct information. After AF447, there was more training in this exact scenario and emphasis on which alarms to prioritize.

Why keep the name? It would be more spiteful to name it the Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton Golf Course.

No, the plane warned of stall many times. The problem was the plane issued many, many other alarms. It is surmised they were just overwhelmed by the number and failed to prioritize which alarm to correct.

Also Airbus only recommended replacement on the 320. AF447 was a 330 but used the same pitot tubes.

A contributing factor was the plane was giving contradicting speed readings and alarms. And there were a lot of alarms. The flight was at night during a storm so the pilots had few visual clues about how fast they were moving. Yes the pilots should have heeded the stall warning over the other alarms, but it was not as simple as the crew just ignoring the only alarm. After this accident, the scenario of contradictory alarms was added to pilot training.

The pitot tubes were known by both Airbus and Air France to fail due to icing. Airbus issued recommendations to replace them on the Airbus 320 not the 330 which was the model AF447 used. The 330 used the same pitot tubes.

Aviation experts have raised concerns about the over reliance on computers by younger pilots. The pilot that was flying the plane (PF) had the least amount of experience but was also the youngest of the pilots. He would have spent the less amount of time manually flying a plane. The older pilots would have manually flown planes more over their careers as computer controls were not as sophisticated as they are now.

The root cause of the crash was the pitot tubes icing during certain flight conditions that caused erratic speed readings. This lead to the conflicting warnings and alarms that led to the crash. Airbus was concerned enough to issue recommendations to replace that model of pitot tube for their Airbus 320 planes; however, AF447 was an Airbus 330 which used the same pitot tubes. Neither Airbus nor Air France felt it was a priority to replace the pitot tubes.

Oh, but these are *preventative* wars. He gets a peace prize for every country he invades!

Venezuela was using fentanyl as a WMD. Iran was about to nuke us. Cuba might attack us with drones if someone provides them. Greenland might start a snowball fight, and make us look bad if we lose.

Presumably we've got all our best people on this, since they're obviously not on the UFO videos.