FaceDeer

That’s how it goes for any industry in its growth phase. A lot of money is spent on research and infrastructure before it starts to collect revenue.

You specifically referenced speed, though, which is emphatically not a legal drug. Amphetamines in general are tightly restricted.

Except doing drugs is illegal, whereas using AI is not. Fairly important distinction.

Need to make it sound apocalyptic somehow to draw the clicks.

How would bots be kept out of it?

Okay, he’s a leader of a large religion.

That still doesn’t give him any special knowledge or authority regarding AI.

Specifically sex abuse within the church.

Lots of religions have one of those.

He’s a religious leader, what does he have to do with the tech industry?

At least it doesn’t contain any fire.

Ya know those are overpriced shit, right?

Ya know that’s irrelevant to the point being made, right?

Whatever you may personally think about those products they’re very profitable now.

Whether inference is profitable or not is not a global yes/no question. It depends heavily on the circumstances, what you’re using it for and what you’re charging for it. A lot of the money being invested in research right now is going into making inference cheaper, which would of course make it more profitable to sell at current price points. Or just run it yourself, local models are getting quite capable these days.

I wouldn’t bet on any specific company being the ones to survive this, especially not first-movers like OpenAI. More likely they’ll spend their money blazing the trail and the ones to profit from it will be the ones who followed along behind. When a company goes bankrupt it doesn’t poof out of existence, its assets get sold off at pennies on the dollar and then whoever bought those assets gets a chance at running them without the overhead of the previous company’s debt.

This seems somewhat misleading. Lots of products take a lot of investment in them for many years before they reach profitability. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner, for example, was in development for 7 years and another three years after that before it was profitable. The Falcon 9 rocket took 13 years to develop and now it’s the most profitable satellite launcher around. The Dyson bag-free cyclonic vacuum cleaner took 15 years to develop.

Most of this AI stuff has only been in heavy development since ChatGPT burst upon the scene in 2023. It’s not unreasonable to see the industry still heavily into the investment and development side of things.

I think prohibiting reverse engineering would do far more harm.

I’m told that AI can’t actually replace humans, so presumably those jobs will be back in short order.

Yes, that’s the plan, tens of thousands of satellites. SpaceX has actually proposed a million of them in the long term, this sort of constellation is one of the things that a launcher like Starship is intended to support.

Starlink is already on this scale and that’s just using Falcon 9.

Over and over the “it can’t be cooled” refrain. The math and engineering says otherwise. Here’s a video by Scott Manley that walks you through the calculations. It’s quite straightforward, this is not an obstacle.

Musk is not the only person planning these sorts of satellites.

So don’t pack them as densely as Earth-based data centers are packed.

In another comment in this thread I posted a link to a youtube video by Scott Manley explaining the math and engineering behind cooling computer hardware in space, it’s actually pretty straightforward.

That article was incorrect, then. There are many satellites already in orbit that have computers in them - basically all of them do, nowadays - and cooling them is a well understood engineering problem.