Eh? No it doesn't. We didn't have to rebuild our home to make it robot vacuum friendly. You don't need to rebuild a bar to have a machine that can pour drinks and move them down to you.

Hell, you don't even need voice recognition. My local taco bells switched to no counter service. There's no one to take your order. You go to the giant screen, punch in what you want, pay, and one of the two employees in the whole store will put your bag of food on the shelf for you to get. My order accuracy has improved dramatically, they move through orders far more quickly, and subjectively it's a much better experience. All with less than half the staff they used to have.

Hey there, Dan here. I was an Engineering Analyst on this project, and can tell you that aside from the frame, everything was either bought at a large store or 3D printed at home. The most expensive part was still the launch, however, which was donated to us by D-orbit.

Right - that was kinda what I was trying to understand. I know they fail, but have to assume they're 100% accurate before they do. Sounds like a good idea for the environment, but what's the true impact of hardware sensors on the environment vs manufacture cost savings - would like to know the assumptions they used to get at that number.

Is it worth the risk to have (again) more data like that out in the wild (given their partner), and security issues around the ability to remotely alter the performance of your vehicle. I'm sure considerations like these were taken into account - Right?

But it does sound like a great opportunity provided there are measurable benefits to the environment, and would definitely provide huge benefits especially for the global fleet management market.

100%. I loved the movie. I guess I could have phrased my comment better.

But... but... AI is gonna take our joerbs

I think there missing a golden opportunity and are being short sighted. If they are truly going to clean up space junk, why not send it to the moon? That way when moon bases are being built, they will already have resources up there to work with instead of sending it back down to Earth? It would make sense to develop a plan to reuse those parts instead of letting them partially burn up on reentry, and shipping more materials to another planetary object. Just my $0.10. Am I missing something?

While the shuttle had the space arm, the shuttle fleet has been retired. I think we should be reuse as much of those components as we can.

-JIW

Hey everyone! I’m Marco, the Chief Engineer from SBUDNIC. I’m legit shocked/delighted by the response here, and so I’ll be doing an AMA tonight at 6:30 EST. U/theantimosby will likely also be stopping by; he is one of SBUDNIC’s engineers. See you then!

As I mentioned - this has nothing to do with how bad humans are on the battlefield, both ineffectual and immoral.

The DoD will still hire them just to have a huge "support the troops" voter base; since every family member of every soldier (especially the ones who's kids are being put in harms way) will vote to increase funding to "keep them safe".

Emergent abilities are consequences of unconscious self-improvement. The breaking point will be when AI can improve itself without direct human intervention. I think we will see that very soon. Definitely, the next few years will be the most exciting!

I don’t disagree.

But if it comes down to a question of survival and it’s too late for other options, this is the fail safe.

It will cause problems, including acid rain. It will have free riders, it will reduce food production due reducing sunlight, and it will disrupt global weather patterns.

I'm mainly talking about how this will be a free rider problem. Geoengineering isn't free and has to be continually maintained. The issue is that since everyone will benefit, there isn't the incentive to contribute to the cause. Or, assuming the end goal is to eventually ween ones self off of geoengineering, free riders will have to be "strong-armed" (for lack of a better term) into going carbon zero (or carbon negative). Otherwise, once one of more parties stop the practice, we'll be right back at square one in regards to problems.

Volcanos have been doing this periodically for Earths entire history.

Mt. Tambora’s eruption in 1816 lowered global temperatures by ~1^• F for a year.

Anything done by humans would have to be done in a more controlled manner.

Cost/benefit analysis.

Which option is worse will depend on the extent of the climate change.

When AI can improve itself things will speed up even faster than they are now. I wonder what one year from now will look like in the world of AI.

Regardless of who started it, the point remains the same. When you preach to the world about cutting these things out to save it but show up in a multimillion dollar private jet the message falls flat.

Change doesn't come from people yelling and screaming about it, change comes from doing the thing you want others to do.

I never was ignorant and listened to scientist opinion on the matter since I first got a wind of it 20 years now.

You making accusations and assumptions is just you making yourself an excuse to continue supporting people making hysterical doomer false comments and hurting other people's lives and futures with those comments. Lives that should not have been otherwise hurt by any real climate danger.

[removed]

If somebody wants to buy a specific human made item, he or she wouldn't be satisfied by a perfect machine made replica, right? For example, if I want an original Salvador Dali painting on my wall, I won't buy a replica, however perfect it is, and however it seems to be a mere semantic question.

yes and sulfur dioxide would also create acid rain and result in less crop yield

use calcium carbonate instead and you lose the acid rain and gain a marginal improvement to ocean acidity tho you still get lower crop yields with any solar dimming

"Atoms combining together is just simple chemistry, no way they can form a living being"

"Animals are just reproduction engines, they can only adapt to environment, but could never become intelligent"

"Nature and evolution know nothing how brains and intelligence work. They can create an intelligent being"

We see everywhere how simple low-level systems produce novel, complex high-level effects. You are making an extremely controversial claim that computation and statistics can't form AGI, but you are not providing any proof.

If you want to see the level at which LLMs can develop novel, unexpected capabilities, try playing a game of chess with GPT4. After reaching some position never encountered before, which it couldn't have seen anywhere, ask it to explain the current situation on board, motivation behind its previous move, next move suggestions and strategies. Of course, the current GPT version does not play perfect chess, but it still makes good legal moves and has decent understanding of what's happening on board. Now recall that this thing is not a chess engine, it was never trained to play chess. It just got fed a lot of chess games and books on chess strategy.

It doesn't matter, because the definition is universal, not depending on dictionaries.

[deleted]

Before the flood was a warning and Don’t look up was prophecy.

I believe gyros can/could orient satellites especially those with a sail to use solar winds to deorbit.

https://issfd.org/ISSFD_2011/S12-Orbit.Dynamics.3-ODY3/S12_P3_ISSFD22_PF_038.pdf

God you're the worst. Spelling nazi thank you