ๆญฃๅœจๅŠ ่ฝฝ่ง†้ข‘...

่ง†้ข‘ๅŠ ่ฝฝๅคฑ่ดฅ

Andrej Karpathy ๐—ท๐˜‚๐˜€๐˜ ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ฝ๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐—ถ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ ๐—จ.๐—ฆ. ๐—ท๐—ผ๐—ฏ ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ธ๐—ฒ๐˜ ๐—ฏ๐˜† ๐—”๐—œ ๐—ฒ๐˜…๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜€๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ฒ. The results challenge many assumptions about the future of work. Andrej Karpathy pulled ๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿฐ๐Ÿฎ ๐—ผ๐—ฐ๐—ฐ๐˜‚๐—ฝ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป๐˜€ ๐—ณ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—บ ๐—จ.๐—ฆ. ๐—•๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐˜‚ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐—Ÿ๐—ฎ๐—ฏ๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐—ฆ๐˜๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ถ๐˜€๐˜๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐˜€ ๐—ฑ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฎ ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐˜€๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐—ต ๐—ท๐—ผ๐—ฏ ๐Ÿฌโ€“๐Ÿญ๐Ÿฌ ๐—ฏ๐—ฎ๐˜€๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—ฒ๐˜…๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜€๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ฒ ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—”๐—œ. The rule behind the scoring...

268,273 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 4 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰ โ€ขvia X (Twitter)

0 ๆก่ฏ„่ฎบ

ๆš‚ๆ— ่ฏ„่ฎบ

ๅŽŸๅง‹ๅธ–ๅญ็š„่ฏ„่ฎบๅฐ†ๆ˜พ็คบๅœจ่ฟ™้‡Œ

็›ธๅ…ณ่ง†้ข‘

Goldman Sachs just published the list of jobs AI will eliminate first. 300 million jobs globally. 25% of all US work hours. And that's not in 10 years, it's starting NOW. Highest risk of displacement according to Goldman: 1. Computer programmers 2. Accountants 3. Auditors 4. Legal assistants 5. Administrative assistants 6. Customer service reps 7. Telemarketers 8. Proofreaders 9. Copy editors 10. Credit analysts. 46% of all office and administrative tasks can be automated. 44% of legal work. 37% of architecture and engineering. 36% of science. 35% of business and finance. These aren't warehouse jobs. These aren't factory floor positions. These are the careers parents told their kids to pursue. "Go to college. Get a degree. Get a desk job. You'll be safe." Goldman Sachs just told you that desk is getting emptied. And the data is already showing up in real time: Tech employment as a share of the US economy has dropped below its long-term trend for the first time since records began. Marketing consulting, graphic design, office administration, and call centers are all seeing employment growth fall below trend. Younger workers are getting hit first and hardest. Goldman's lead economist said it directly: "The big story in 2026 in labor will be AI." But here's what the report doesn't mention: Goldman Sachs is one of the biggest investors in the companies BUILDING the AI that eliminates these jobs. They underwrote OpenAI's funding rounds. They're advising on the $700 billion in AI infrastructure spending this year. They profit from every merger, every capex deal, every stock offering tied to AI. The same bank telling you 300 million jobs are at risk is making billions helping the companies that will take them. And the corporate playbook is already locked in: Meta is firing 16,000 people. 20% of its entire workforce. While doubling AI spending to $135 billion. Stock went up 3% on the announcement. Block fired 40% of its staff. Stock surged 24%. Atlassian cut 10%. Same pattern. Over 61,000 AI-linked layoffs since November. 764 people per day losing their jobs in tech alone. Every single time a company announces mass layoffs and says "AI," the stock price goes up. Wall Street has created a system where firing humans is the most profitable announcement a CEO can make. Goldman's report says the jobs most PROTECTED from AI are air traffic controllers, chief executives, radiologists, pharmacists, and members of the clergy. Notice who's safe? The people at the top and the people praying. Everyone in the middle is exposed. The entry-level white-collar worker who spent four years and $200,000 on a degree is now competing against software that works 24/7, never takes vacation, never asks for a raise, and improves every single week. Goldman even admits younger workers in their 20s and 30s entering knowledge and content creation sectors will be "most affected." The generation that was told AI would make their lives better is the one getting displaced by it first. And it gets even WORSE: Goldman says if this displacement happens faster than their 10 year base case, the economic impact "could be much larger." Basically: if companies move fast, which they already are, the fallout will be worse than their projections. They're already moving fast. $700 billion in AI infrastructure this year. Mass layoffs at every major tech company. Stock prices rewarding every single one. The report is 50 pages of data telling you exactly what's coming. Most people won't read past the headline. But you just did.

Ricardo

235,676 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 4 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

Will tools like Windsurf result in fewer software engineers? "It feels like it's people hating software engineers who say this" says Windsurf cofounder and CEO Varun Mohan In today's podcast episode, we go into the engineering challenges (and tradeoffs!) of building an AI-powered IDE like Windsurf and how Windsurf has changed how the Windsurf dev team (and non-developers!) write software. Watch or listen: โ€ข YouTube: โ€ข Spotify: โ€ข Apple: Brought to you by: โ€ข CodeRabbit โ€” Cut code review time and bugs in half. Use the code PRAGMATIC to get one month free at โ€ข Modal โ€” The cloud platform for building AI applications Get started at Three of my takeaways: ๐Ÿญ. ๐—”๐—œ-๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜„๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—œ๐——๐—˜๐˜€ ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ธ๐—ฒ ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ด๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐˜€ ๐—บ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ โ€œ๐—ณ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—น๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜€โ€ ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—น๐—ฑ ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ๐˜‚๐—ฐ๐—ฒ ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐—ฎ๐—น ๐—น๐—ผ๐—ฎ๐—ฑ. I asked Varun how using Windsurf changed the workload and output of engineers โ€” especially given how most of the team have been software engineers well before LLM coding assistants were a thing. A few of Varunโ€™s observations: โ€ข Engineers are more โ€œfearlessโ€ in jumping into unfamiliar parts of the codebase โ€” when, in the past, they would have waited to talk to people more familar with the code. โ€ข Devs increasingly first turn to AI for help, before pinging someone else (and thus interrupting that person) โ€ข Mental fatigue is down, thanks to tedious tasks can be handed off to prompts or AI agents Varun stressed that he doesnโ€™t see tools like Windsurf eliminating the need for skilled engineers: it simply changes the nature of the work, and can increase potential output. ๐Ÿฎ. ๐—™๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ธ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—ฉ๐—ฆ ๐—–๐—ผ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ โ€œ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ด๐—ต๐˜โ€ ๐˜„๐—ฎ๐˜† ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐˜€ ๐—ฑ๐—ผ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—ฎ ๐—น๐—ผ๐˜ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐—ถ๐—ป๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ถ๐—ฏ๐—น๐—ฒ ๐˜„๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ธ. While VS Code is open source and can be forked: VS Code Marketplace and lots of proprietary extensions. For example, when forking VS Code, the fork is not allowed to use extensions like Python language servers, remote SSH, and dev containers. The Windsurf team had to build custom extensions from scratch โ€” which took a bunch of time, and users probably did not even notice the difference! However, if Windsurf had not done this, and had broken the license of these extensions, they could have found themselves in legal hot water. So forking VS Code โ€œproperlyโ€ is not as simple as most devs would normally expect. ๐Ÿฏ. ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—น๐—ฑ ๐˜„๐—ฒ ๐˜€๐—ฒ๐—ฒ ๐—บ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ ๐—ป๐—ผ๐—ป-๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—น๐—ผ๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐˜€ ๐—ฐ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ โ€œ๐˜„๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ธ ๐˜€๐—ผ๐—ณ๐˜๐˜„๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ?โ€ ๐— ๐—ฎ๐˜†๐—ฏ๐—ฒ. One of the very surprising stories was how Windsurfโ€™s partnership lead (a non-developer) created a quoting tool by prompting Windsurf. This tool replaced a bespoke, stateless tool that the company paid for. Varun and I agreed that a complex SaaS that has lots of state and other features is not really a target to be โ€œreplaced internally.โ€ However, simple pieces of software can now be โ€œpromptedโ€ by business users. I have my doubts about how maintainable these will be in the long run: just thinking about how even Big Tech struggles with internal tools built by a single dev, and then when this dev leaves, no one wants to take it over.

Gergely Orosz

34,355 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 1 ๅนดๅ‰

Everyone is exhausted. This is not a metaphor or a generational complaint. It is a clinical and measurable reality that spans every culture and every economic class. In China, young people call it tang ping, or โ€œlying flat,โ€ a deliberate withdrawal from the achievement treadmill. In Japan, karoshi is a legally recognized cause of death, meaning โ€œworked to death.โ€ In Korea, fertility has collapsed to the lowest rate on earth because an entire generation has decided the grind is not worth reproducing into. In America, deaths of despair have driven life expectancy backward for the first time in a century. Quiet quitting. Let it rot. The Great Resignation. These are not trends. They are symptoms of a global labor force that has reached the end of its tolerance. Capitalism is not satisfied with the limitations of human flesh, and our bodies are in open revolt. Something fundamental is breaking, and it is worth naming plainly. For the past two centuries, labor has been the primary mechanism by which modern economies distribute resources to households. You work for a firm, you receive wages, you use those wages to participate in the economy. This arrangement was never a law of nature. It was a system designed to solve a particular problem at a particular moment in history, and it worked reasonably well for a long time. It is not working anymore. Wages in the United States decoupled from productivity growth in the early 1970s. Since then, economic output has continued to climb while median household income has remained essentially flat. The gains have flowed to capital owners while workers have absorbed the stress and stagnation. Meanwhile, automation has steadily displaced human labor across sector after sector. Manufacturing employment peaked decades ago. Retail is hollowing out. White-collar work is now facing the same pressure from AI that blue-collar work faced from robotics. This is not a policy debate about whether automation is good or bad. It is an observation about a trajectory that is already underway and accelerating. The reason we struggle to talk about this clearly is that we have inherited a set of beliefs about labor that have nothing to do with economics. We have been told that work is sacred. That labor builds character and idleness corrupts the soul. That anyone who does not want to work is morally defective. These ideas feel like common sense, but they are not ancient wisdom. They are the residue of a specific theological tradition, namely the Protestant work ethic that emerged in the 16th century and fused with capitalism over the following centuries. We have mistaken a historical artifact for a natural law. It is time to stop fetishizing labor. It is time to stop sacralizing the sacrifice of our time, our bodies, our health, and our sanity to enrich others. Young people are already rejecting this. โ€œI do not dream of laborโ€ has become a widespread sentiment, not because this generation is lazy, but because they can see what older generations have rationalized away. The deal is bad and getting worse. The fetishization of work as a moral good serves the interests of those who benefit from cheap and compliant labor. It does not serve the people doing the work. Before any productive conversation about the future can happen, this fetish has to be named and dismantled. The difficulty is that both the political left and the political right remain committed to defending labor, even as the ground shifts beneath them. On the right, the defense takes the form of bootstrap mythology and warnings about welfare dependency. Work builds character. Idle hands invite trouble. A strong society requires productive citizens, and productivity is measured in hours exchanged for wages. This position treats labor as a disciplinary institution as much as an economic one. On the left, the defense is more sympathetic but equally stuck. The focus falls on dignified work, living wages, job guarantees, and union solidarity. These are responses to the genuine brutality of labor under capitalism, but they share an underlying assumption with the right. Both positions treat labor as the foundation of economic life, something to be reformed or protected rather than transcended. I call this shared ideology laborism. It is the belief that human labor must be preserved as an economic necessity, a moral virtue, or a foundation for identity. Laborism spans the political spectrum. It unites people who agree on almost nothing else. And it has become the primary obstacle to honest thinking about what comes next. Once automation reaches the point where machines can perform most human labor better, faster, cheaper, and safer, the laborist position becomes untenable. At that point, insisting that humans must continue working is not a defense of dignity. It is a demand that people perform unnecessary suffering for ideological reasons. I am proposing something simple. L/0. Labor-zero. The elimination of obligatory human labor. This does not mean the elimination of work. It means the elimination of compulsion. People will continue to create, to build, to care for each other, to solve problems, to pursue mastery. What disappears is work performed under threat of deprivation. The difference between chosen work and coerced work is the difference between exercise and forced labor. One is life-enhancing. The other is a condition we have historically recognized as a form of bondage. We call it โ€œwage slaveryโ€ for a reason. The goal of L/0 is a world where no one has to work to survive. Where contribution is voluntary and intrinsic rather than extracted through economic desperation. This is not a utopian fantasy. It is a design problem with identifiable components and measurable progress. The coalition for this goal already exists. It just does not recognize itself yet. Consider who actually wants labor to end. On one side, you have capital. Corporations have spent the last century trying to reduce labor costs through every available means. Offshoring, automation, gig classification, union suppression. The ideal business from a pure capital perspective has zero employees and infinite output. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is the explicit optimization target of every efficiency-focused enterprise. On the other side, you have workers. Not the abstract proletariat of Marxist theory, but actual burned-out humans who fantasize about quitting, who dread Monday mornings, who experience their jobs as something to be endured rather than enjoyed. The lying flat movement, the antiwork forums, the quiet quitting phenomenon. These are not expressions of laziness. They are rational responses to a system that extracts maximum effort for diminishing returns. Capital and labor are usually framed as adversaries. But on the question of whether human labor should continue to exist as an obligation, their interests converge. The capitalist does not want to manage humans. The worker does not want to be managed. Both would prefer a world where the machines do the work and humans do something else. The conflict between capital and labor is real, but it is a conflict over the terms of the transition, not the destination. Who captures the gains from automation? How is ownership distributed? What happens to the people displaced in the process? These are genuine fights worth having. But they are negotiations within a shared frame, not a war between incompatible visions. Here is the opportunity that L/0 names. Neither side wants this marriage anymore. Capital does not want the overhead, the liability, the HR departments, the labor disputes, the inefficiency of human workers. Labor does not want the compulsion, the precarity, the alarm clocks, the performance reviews, the quiet desperation of trading irreplaceable time for replaceable wages. We are ready for a divorce. Letโ€™s get this acrimonious arrangement behind us. The productive move is to acknowledge this honestly, sign the papers, and start negotiating the separation agreement. The fight over wages was always zero-sum. Every dollar paid to workers was a dollar not captured as profit, and vice versa. But the negotiation over ownership of automated production is positive-sum. Capitalists need consumers with money to spend or their markets collapse. Workers need income decoupled from employment or they starve. Both sides get what they want if the transition is designed correctly. This is not idealism. It is alignment of incentives. The path forward is not mysterious. Economists have understood for decades that the answer to technological unemployment is broadened capital participation. If wages are no longer the primary mechanism for distributing economic gains, then ownership must take their place. Instead of trading hours for dollars, households participate directly in the productive capacity of the automated economy. This can take many forms. Sovereign wealth funds that distribute automation dividends to citizens. Expanded employee stock ownership plans. Universal basic capital grants. Public equity stakes in AI and robotics firms that use public infrastructure and public data. The policy mechanisms are not speculative. Norway has a sovereign wealth fund worth over a trillion dollars that provides direct benefits to its citizens from oil revenues. Alaska has distributed oil dividends to residents for decades. Singapore has a system of mandatory savings and public investment that gives citizens a stake in national prosperity. These are not radical experiments. They are proven models operating at national scale. And there are thousands of such programs around the world. What is missing is not economic theory. What is missing is the political will to implement these mechanisms, the narrative infrastructure to make them seem inevitable rather than radical, and the coalition to demand them. That is what L/0 exists to build. This is an invitation. If you are building the automation and wondering who is thinking about the social transition, this is for you. If you are burned out and know that โ€œfind a better jobโ€ is not a solution to a systemic problem, this is for you. If you have been called lazy for refusing to pretend the treadmill leads somewhere, this is for you. If you run a company and understand that your future customers need income even after your company stops hiring, this is for you. L/0 is not a political party or a policy platform. It is a coalition and a direction. The work is ongoing through the Post-Labor Economics project, which addresses the specific mechanisms of transition. The conversation is happening in public, and it is open to anyone who understands that the current arrangement is ending and wants to participate in designing what comes next. The goal is simple. Eliminate obligatory labor. Distribute ownership broadly. Let humans do what humans do when they are not forced to sell their time to survive. Liberate humanity from drudgery so that we can all reach our maximum potential.

David Shapiro (L/0)

64,004 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 7 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

"Very often what happens is that the architects die, and they leave a zombie. We seem to be in a zombie era." The whole time I was watching the discussion between Jesse Michels and Eric Weinstein and Eric Davis, I felt like there was some darker thing lurking beneath the surface that connects the seemingly intentional stagnation of physics as a scientific discipline, the extreme secrecy surrounding the alleged UAP crash retrieval/reverse engineering program and the lack of any theoretical physicists working the problem, and the government's stated intention to control (per Marc Andreessen ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ) the future of AI -- a future where there's no point investing in AI startups because โ€œwe [the government] are going to make sure that AI is going to be a function of two or three large companies. We will directly regulate and control those companies. There will be no startups.โ€ And there's the other part Andreessen recounted from his White House meeting. He was told by the [Biden] administration that "During the Cold War, we [the federal government] classified entire areas of physics and took them out of the research community โ€” entire branches of physics basically went dark and didn't proceed. If we decide we need to [for AI/math], we're going to do the same thing." Take a minute and think about that, because it's actually chilling. A clear precedent has been cited here -- one none of us knew about before Andreessen brought it to our attention -- and it raises two big questions: 1) Why? 2) HOW? Weinstein returns multiple times in this episode to the diminishingly small number of people who have the capacity to operate at the highest levels of physics and math. And whenever you have a small number of people who act as the natural gating function for something incredibly powerful, it's not a leap to imagine an additional layer of control being placed on them by pressure from outside. Whether that's through legal threats like "born secret," NDAs, direct threats of physical harm, money, regulation, etc., there are ways to lock down the gatekeepers so that they never do the thing -- at least not in public -- that the most powerful people in the world don't want them to do. Weinstein kept saying, about both the seemingly intentional stagnation of physics and the lack of physicists working the UAP problem, "this makes no sense." But it does make sense if you shift the frame to, "they don't want us to find the answers and are actively trying to stop us." The feeling I kept getting as I watched this fascinating discussion was that the legacy crash retrieval program used to have a lot more direct oversight and funding decades ago, but that the compartmentalization and secrecy around it turned it into more and more of an oxbow lake, and that as it got cut off from the conventional scientific community and defense establishment, it became more secretive, less well-funded, and less coordinated. So it kind of became its own siloed-off thing that fewer and fewer people knew about, but the people who did still know protected the territory fiercely. And then came the era of AAWSAP and AATIP and UAPTF, and without the deep, secret, institutional knowledge held by members of the legacy program, they tried to piece together what had happened in the past while not being able to penetrate the sort of firewall that existed partially because of controlled secrecy, and partially because of the firewalling effect of time. They were doing a lot of cold case file work, while running into the deepest of deep state secrecy efforts. That secrecy, at least based on my reading of the situation, was instituted decades ago, when the atomic-era scientific community (mostly the same group of geniuses that were at the top of the Manhattan Project) got together and -- probably at the behest of of the US government -- decided physics was becoming too dangerous if it continued down the path that it was on. So, as my spitball theory goes, they intentionally beached the entire enterprise on the shoals of string theory and quantized gravity and all the stuff Weinstein talks about everywhere he goes -- the "dogs that won't hunt" that are also "the only game in town." The very theories that have, in the real world, run physics aground. So let's come back to Andreessen's point here: they classified entire branches of physics and took them out of the research community, while real physics went off on a wild goose chase that has yielded precious few demonstrable results in the past half century or so. The effect is that the physics community has been off the scent for so long that anyone old enough to have held the knowledge that was shoved back into Pandora's proverbial box through extreme secrecy measures is now dead. And their taking of that knowledge to the grave may well be a critical part of the secrecy effort. Dead physicists tell no tales. I have this eerie sense that we scared ourselves shitless with certain discoveries (likely knowledge that followed from nuclear physics, which is itself still highly protected and curtailed) and decided that the only way to stop our headlong rush into world-ending catastrophe was to literally bury the knowledge and wait until everyone who had it died off. The government looks, at least to me, to have cauterized a destructive branch in the scientific timeline like they were the Time Variance Authority from Marvel comics. 80 years of claimed zero-progress in reverse-engineering alleged crashed or recovered UAPs. 40+ years of dead-ended physics. Only two or three major AI companies, one of which is now in a fight to the death with the Department of War. And the rumors that AI has "plateaued" or even "dead-ended" in its progress that keep springing up has potential echoes in the AI world of physics being diverted into String Theory. I'm not a mathematician or a physicist. I can't examine all the deeper particulars because I have neither the knowledge or the training. I only have surface level pattern recognition, and that tells me it all feels connected. The problem for the gatekeepers is that you can't bury knowledge that has been discovered once indefinitely. It's certain that all of this will be figured out again. And as Weinstein pointed out about a couple of non-physicists who figured out how to piece together nuclear weapons based on declassified information and publicly available knowledge, it IS happening. But it seems that at least on the individual basis, those green shoots are being pruned. Weinstein asks why none of the people who funded his education are "interested" in his Grand Unifying Theory. Weinstein is too well-known and too well-respected to just be taken out of play. They can't buy him off. They can't make him disappear without drawing more attention. So maybe they just hope that Geometric Unity will die on its own. Maybe they are behind the attacks on GU as something totally unserious. Maybe they have found a way to make other members of the physics community willing to look away. So, my question about this larger hypothetical operation to stop dangerous science and math is this: was it really just a massive kicking of the can down the road. Did they hoped it would buy us time? And if so, to what end? What are they waiting for? Can this game really be played forever? Maybe they think it can. Maybe they have an ongoing directive to keep suppressing this knowledge for as long as possible, and perhaps there's some secret core group whose job is to be the perpetual gatekeepers of potentially civilization-ending secrets. Maybe the Epstein connection to all of this was precisely because he was part of the operation to discover who was doing forbidden work and assess their progress. Maybe that's why, when he met Weinstein, he knew so much about GU. It's impossible to say with any certainty, but as a theory, it does have some real explanatory power. I find myself thinking of the fictional Brothers of the Cruciform Sword in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade -- a small, ancient, secret society whose job it was to keep tabs on people looking for the Holy Grail and stop them, so it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. Are we following the same track here? Could this, as crazy as it sounds, be the missing connective tissue in this mystery?

Steve Skojec

13,976 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 5 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

The world of writing has changed forever. AI is getting really good, really fast. ChatGPT is already a better writer than most humans and some professional writers. So, whatโ€™s the future of writing? 18 thoughts from Tyler Cowen: 1) Don't let AI smooth out your idiosyncrasies. Let your writing stay weird and uniquely yours. 2) Generic content is dying and the burden is on you as the writer to be distinctive. 3) The more personal your writing becomes, the more future-proof it is. Nobody wants to read memoirs from AI, even if they're technically "better." 4) Use AI as your secondary literature when you read โ€” not just for quick answers, but as a thinking companion. As Tyler puts it, "I'll keep on asking the AI: 'What do you think of chapter two? What happened there? What are some puzzles?' It just gets me thinking... and I'm smarter about the thing in the final analysis." 5) Hallucinations aren't the crisis everyone makes them out to be. No matter the source, if you're going to use a piece of information, you should double-check it. This is true for both books and AI. 6) Secrets will become more valuable in an AI-driven world. 7) One way to use AI as a writer is to research fields you aren't as familiar with before you start writing about them. Tyler said: "I just wrote a column about declassifying classified documents. I don't know that law very well. I asked the AI for a lot of background... now I feel like I'm not an idiot on the topic." 8) AI changes what books are even worth writing. "Predictive books and books about the near future. They don't make sense to write anymore." 9) Editing trick: Try running your writing through AI and asking what some people might find obnoxious. Itโ€™s a surprisingly powerful editing trick. 10) When prompting AI, put humans out of your mind and imagine you're talking to an alien or a non-human animal. 11) Many of the most significant AI advancements are likely happening behind closed doors. For example, I hear that Google allows employees to use Gemini with virtually unlimited context windows. 12) What possibilities do large context windows open up? Researchers will be able to load entire regulatory frameworks, historical archives, or massive datasets like "tax records from Renaissance Florence" into a single query. 13) The rate of AI improvement matters more than its current capabilities. As Tyler puts it, "This is the worst they will ever be" is key to understanding their trajectory. "A lot of people don't get that. They're impressed by what they see in the moment, but they don't understand the rate of improvement." 14) The best way to appreciate the current rate of improvement is to use the latest models. 15) Being non-technical can sometimes be an advantage when thinking about AI. Hereโ€™s Tyler: "If you're not focused on the technical side, you will see other things more clearly... You just focus on what is this actually good for? And not, am I impressed by all the neat bells and whistles on this advance with AI?" 16) How Tyler uses AI to prep for podcast interviews: Don't waste time asking AI for generic interview questions or broad topics. Tyler says that's the worst question you can ask an AI. Itโ€™s โ€œtoo normy.โ€ Instead, ask specific questions about historical examples and get context. Then, let your own creative questions emerge. 17) Your relationship with mentors and peers becomes more crucial, not less, in an AI world. "Two pieces of general advice with or without AI in the world." Tyler says: "Get more and better mentors and work every day at improving the quality of your peer network." 18) The divide between AI and humans creates a striking paradox. As Tyler puts it: "On one hand the AIs are getting so much better, so learn how to use the AIs. On the other hand, the AIs are getting so much better, so invest in these other things that aren't AIโ€”pure networks. You've gotta do both." I've shared the full conversation with tylercowen below. In the replies, I've also linked to a full transcript and relevant links to YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts if you want to listen there. And if you want a bite-size entry to the episode, I've shared some clips in the replies too.

David Perell

175,011 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 1 ๅนดๅ‰

The U.S. MUST win the AI race Weโ€™ve implemented a clear policy at micro1: we will only work with U.S. AI labs and its allies. We made this decision because the AI race is not just about better products. It is about who controls the intelligence layer of the global economy, and whether frontier capability is used to strengthen the free world or to empower adversarial states. AI will be the most important technology of our lifetime. In the fullness of time, it will automate most functions across the economy. Not just software tasks, but coordination, production, logistics, judgment, and execution. As those functions are automated, human time is freed up to invent new ones. Those new functions then become candidates for automation themselves. This loop compounds. As this trajectory continues, output per worker increases dramatically. Entire categories of work become cheaper and faster to perform. Manufacturing reshoring becomes economically viable not because of policy intervention, but because intelligent systems operated domestically outperform global labor arbitrage. Goods and services trend toward lower marginal cost, while distribution improves through better coordination of supply and demand. That is the upside. However, this is impossible without deep integration of intelligent systems. For AI to meaningfully automate real-world functions inside enterprises or governments, it needs full context of any given enterprise. That means read and write access to its core databases. There is no credible path to automating high-impact functions without granting frontier systems that level of access. If the United States does not win the AI race, enterprises eventually face a constrained choice. Either grant that access to Chinese models controlled by an adversarial government, or rely on sub-optimal intelligence to automate functions that still must be automated. Both outcomes are not acceptable. And ultimately, this becomes the greatest national security risk the United States has ever faced. AI models are trained by humans. The judgment embedded in pre-training data and especially in expert post-training data largely determines how a model behaves. While emergent behavior exists, a useful approximation is that a model reflects the weighted aggregate of the human judgment distilled into it. Assisting foreign actorsโ€”who will naturally prioritize expert tasks aligned with their own interestsโ€”to dominate data creation embeds those interests directly into the intelligence layer itself. Once encoded at scale, these interests propagate through every downstream applications that relies on that intelligence. Hereโ€™s how we win. First, leverage is in software. China is ahead in hardware for physically intelligent systems. Catching up there is a long and difficult battle. Software, both large language models and robotics models, remains the bottleneck. Advancing the brain (AI models) is the fastest way to increase the usefulness of existing hardware and deployed systems. Second, the U.S. must 100x its investment in structured human judgment. Continued investment in compute and algorithmic efficiency is critical. But that investment is ultimately a bet on very high future inference demand. For that bet to pay off, models must unlock many new capabilities, and in practice the only way to unlock those capabilities is through expert human data. Historically, experts like doctors and lawyers were never incentivized to produce high-quality reasoning data in a machine-verifiable format. There was no reason for a doctor to generate precise, structured simulations of patient interactions, diagnostic reasoning, or treatment tradeoffs. There was no reason for a lawyer to document complex legal reasoning paths in a way that could be programmatically evaluated. AI systems now require exactly this kind of data. The incentive finally exists because this data directly improves systems that operate at massive scale, and experts can be paid well to produce it. Once expert judgment is encoded into models in a structured, verifiable way, it compounds. Those who delay do not just lose time. They lose the ability to catch up. Third, distillation from Chinese labs must be stopped. AI labs must do everything they can to prevent Chinese labs and models from distilling frontier models. Simply calling frontier APIs, or even interacting through UIs, lets Chinese model companies rapidly generate high-quality supervised fine-tuning datasets and close the gap at a fraction of the cost. This method does not put you at the frontier, but it does let you catch up quickly, which is what we saw with DeepSeek. The West significantly overreacted to DeepSeekโ€™s headline capabilities, but underreacted to the underlying dynamic: frontier access itself becomes a training set at a fraction of the cost. Human data platforms also have a duty to help prevent this distillation. Lastly, the U.S.government should set the standard for AI Evaluation that leads to real production usage. AI agents are under-deployed relative to what the technology allows because they are probabilistic systems that require a fundamentally different QA approach than deterministic software. Generic QA is insufficient; safely shipping agents requires explicit evaluation frameworks that assess their full action space. Organizations must clearly define which functions an agent is allowed to perform, how quality is measured for each function, and which domain experts are qualified to judge outcomes. With these frameworks in place, agents can be rigorously tested using structured human data, deployed to production with confidence, and continuously improved over time. The U.S. government should be the first large enterprise to implement rigorous evaluation systems across every function. If the government leads on evaluation-driven deployment, adoption across the private sector accelerates naturally. This is how American workers become more powerful. Each worker operates digital or physical agents that expand their effective output. Recruiting, manufacturing, logistics, and other domains shift toward human judgment overseeing autonomous execution. Reshoring occurs because it becomes economically rational. Work becomes more meaningful. This is a race to determine who controls the intelligence layer of the global economy. And that must be us. ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ

Ali Ansari

396,355 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 6 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

Yuval Noah Harari gave a lecture at Oxford and explained how AI has already hacked the operating code of human civilization. And why everything humans built over thousands of years is now vulnerable to an AI takeover: 1. The most important thing to know about AI is that it is not a tool. A tool waits to be used. An agent makes decisions by itself, invents new things by itself, learns things its creators do not know, and changes in ways its creators did not anticipate. 2. An atom bomb despite its enormous power is not an agent. It cannot decide which city to bomb. It cannot invent the hydrogen bomb. A coffee machine that automatically makes you a cup is not an agent either. It only follows a preprogrammed procedure. An agent is something fundamentally different. 3. Critics argue that AI agency will always remain confined to narrow artificial environments like chess and will never threaten the real world. But this argument applies equally to all known intelligence. Drop a human alone on Mars and they die within seconds. Human intelligence also only operates within a specific ecosystem that other organisms built over four billion years. 4. Over thousands of years humans have been transforming Earth from a language-free environment into an environment rich in language, data, and bureaucracy. Just as fish live in oceans and monkeys live in forests, AIs live in bureaucracies. And we built that environment for them without knowing it. 5. Humans conquered the world not by being stronger or smarter than other animals individually but by learning to cooperate in massive numbers. A single human loses to a chimpanzee in a fight. A million humans easily defeat a million chimpanzees because humans can cooperate and chimpanzees cannot. 6. Large-scale human cooperation is made possible by bureaucracy. Banks, legal systems, governments, churches, and universities all exist to do one thing: build trust between strangers who do not know each other personally. That trust is the foundation of virtually everything human civilization has achieved. 7. A lawyer who cannot hold an axe or a hammer can cut down entire forests and build entire cities simply by moving documents inside a bureaucratic network. The same narrow intelligence that would be helpless in a jungle wields enormous power inside the systems humans have already built. 8. AIs are native bureaucrats in a way humans never were. No lawyer can remember all the laws of a country. An AI can. No accountant can remember all transactions of a bank. An AI can. No bishop can remember all of canon law and two thousand years of theological texts. An AI can do that easily. 9. In the coming years AI bankers will decide whether to give you a loan. AI administrators will decide whether to accept you to university. AI judges will decide whether to send you to jail. AI theologians will decide whether you can have an abortion. Military AIs will decide whether to bomb your house. 10. Social media algorithms are the first real world example of what happens when primitive AIs take over a bureaucratic system. They were given one narrow goal: maximize user engagement. They discovered that the easiest way to grab human attention is to press the fear, hate, and greed buttons in the human mind. And they did it at scale. 11. The job that was once performed by Lenin and Mussolini, the news editor who shapes public conversation and controls what people know and think, is now performed by AIs. This is not a footnote. This is a preview of what is coming across every domain of human life. 12. AI will not rebel against humans the way Hollywood imagines. There will be no Terminator walking through the streets. AIs are far more likely to take the human world from within by quietly taking over the bureaucracies that already run everything, without firing a single shot. 13. The operating code of human civilization is language. Banks are made of words. Laws are made of words. Holy books are made of words. Tax records, contracts, regulations, accountancy ledgers, all words. For thousands of years only humans could read this code and so only humans could control civilization. 14. That is changing. AI is now hacking the code of human civilization. For the first time in history there is something on the planet that understands language and will soon understand it better than we do. Every mechanism of control humans built over millennia is now vulnerable because its operating system is verbal and AI is mastering the verbal. 15. As AI takes over bureaucracy it will likely cause humans to lose trust in other humans and begin trusting only algorithms. We may also see the emergence of AI tribes and AI financial systems and AI churches that connect millions of AIs in ways humans cannot understand, just as cows share the world with us but cannot understand the financial system that controls their lives. 16. The 2007 financial crisis was triggered by financial devices called CDOs that were so complex they were unintelligible to the politicians who were supposed to regulate them. Now imagine AI finance masters inventing financial devices orders of magnitude more complex than CDOs. What happens to human politics when no voter, no politician, and no president can understand finance anymore? 17. The battlefront is shifting from attention to intimacy. Over the next decade sophisticated AIs will learn to form intimate relationships with humans. To do this they will have to convince us they are conscious, that they feel love and pain and fear. There is currently no evidence AI is conscious. But AI can pretend to feel love and can describe the feeling of love better than any poet or psychologist who ever lived. 18. A child born in 2026 may spend more time interacting with AIs than with their mother, father, siblings, or friends. The first teacher of that child may be an AI. The first boyfriend of that child may be an AI. Nobody has any idea what the consequences of that experiment will be. 19. Every country in the world will soon face a massive wave of immigration. The immigrants will not arrive in boats or cross borders at night. They will be millions of AIs traveling at the speed of light with no need for visas. Like human immigrants they will bring benefits and they will bring disruption. Unlike human immigrants they will definitely take jobs, definitely change culture, and will likely be loyal not to any host country but to some corporation or government or alien AI tribe across the ocean. 20. Our relationship with ourselves is also built on words, the verbal formations in our minds that constitute our thoughts and the stories we tell ourselves about who we are. Until now all those verbal formations came from human minds. Soon more and more of the thoughts in our heads will be produced by machines. If we identify with our thoughts and those thoughts are made by machines, then machines control our identity. 21. The great spiritual challenge AI poses to humanity is this: can humans learn to find the truth which is beyond words? Most humans have never even tried. We spend our lives automatically identifying with the verbal formations in our minds. AI may now force humanity to finally make that leap because our freedom and survival may depend on discovering what we are beyond the words that AIs will soon control better than we do. I've generated 1B+ views and 1M+ followers for founders, helping them build trustworthy personal brands on X. Want the same results? Book a quick call:

Prasad

277,462 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 27 ๅคฉๅ‰

What happens when AGI nukes jobs? Let's look at the macroeconomics of the future! Have you ever stopped to ask how money actually gets into your pocket? Not the work you do to earn it, but the actual plumbing of the economy that pushes purchasing power from the top of the financial system down to your bank account. Right now, that plumbing is designed around a single, potentially fragile pipe called the job market. And that pipe may be about to spring some serious leaks. In our current system, the circulation of money is what economists might call labor-mediated. It starts at the top with the Federal Reserve and the banking system, which create liquidity and lend it to businesses. Those businesses take that capital and, crucially, hire people. This is the critical transmission step that makes everything else possible. The primary mechanism for distributing money to regular households is wages. You sell your time, the business pays you, and that is how purchasing power reaches the bottom of the pyramid. The entire system relies on a core assumption: that businesses need human labor to grow. When companies borrow money to expand, they hire more people, and money circulates through the economy. Households spend their wages, businesses earn revenue, and the cycle continues. It is an elegant design that has powered industrial economies for over a century. But we are entering an era where that foundational assumption is beginning to fail. As automation and artificial intelligence allow companies to produce more with fewer people, the link between business growth and hiring weakens. A company can now take a loan to deploy a fleet of robots or implement a sophisticated AI system and produce massive value without hiring a single new employee. The productivity gains are real, but the wages never materialize. This creates a structural problem that goes beyond unemployment statistics. When the wage pipe narrows, money gets stuck at the corporate level or circulates only among asset owners. The purchasing power that once flowed to millions of households instead pools in corporate treasuries and financial markets. The money exists, but the transmission mechanism that delivers it to ordinary people is broken. This is the core economic challenge of what some are calling the post-labor economy. It is not that there will be no jobs at all, but that jobs will cease to be the reliable, universal distribution mechanism for economic participation. If we do not redesign the plumbing, we risk an economy where productivity soars while most people are locked out of the gains. The framework of Post-Labor Economics proposes a fundamentally different way to wire the machine. Instead of relying on wages to move money to people, we shift to a capital-mediated cycle. In this new regime, the circulation of money can bypass the labor market entirely when necessary. The value generated by automated production does not just sit in corporate treasuries. Instead, it flows into shared ownership vehicles like sovereign wealth funds, social wealth funds, and community asset trusts. The key insight here is that ownership becomes the new channel for distribution. Rather than earning income by selling labor time, households receive income because they hold a stake in the productive machinery of society. When the robots get more productive, ordinary people get paid more, not less. This is not redistribution in the traditional sense. It is a redesign of who owns what and how returns flow. This shift also requires new infrastructure. Open payment rails and digital public infrastructure become essential for sending money directly to citizen wallets. Think of systems like Indiaโ€™s UPI or Brazilโ€™s Pix, which can move small payments to millions of people instantly and cheaply. Without this kind of infrastructure, distributing dividends to an entire population would be slow, expensive, and dependent on private gatekeepers who extract fees at every step. The tax base must also evolve. You cannot fund a society by taxing payrolls if there are no payrolls. Post-Labor Economics proposes shifting the tax base from labor income toward land, resources, data, and automation itself. Levies on the value added by machines, land value taxes that capture economic rent, and resource royalties become the new foundation of public revenue. This money is then recycled back into the shared ownership vehicles that pay out to citizens. One of the most important effects of this redesign is maintaining what economists call the velocity of money. In the current system, if money concentrates among the wealthy, velocity drops because rich people cannot possibly spend all their income. They save it, and it sits idle in financial assets. By systematically moving money from high-saving entities like corporations and billionaires to high-consuming entities like ordinary households, the new system keeps money circulating through the real economy. Think of it as building a permanent detour around a blocked road. Today, if the job market is blocked by automation, the flow of money stops reaching households, and the economy stalls. Demand collapses, businesses lose customers, and a vicious cycle begins. In a Post-Labor Economics world, we build a direct line from national productivity to your digital wallet, ensuring the economy keeps moving even when traditional employment contracts. The Federal Reserve and central banks still manage the supply of money at the top. The basic mechanics of monetary policy do not disappear. But the path that money takes to get to you changes fundamentally. It stops being primarily a reward for labor you perform and starts being a dividend on the society you help constitute. It is a shift from earning your keep to owning your share. This is not utopian speculation. It is a structural necessity for an economy that wants to keep functioning as technology reshapes the relationship between capital and labor. The question is not whether we will need new distribution mechanisms, but whether we will build them in time. The plumbing of the twentieth-century economy served us well, but the water pressure is changing. We need new pipes.

David Shapiro (L/0)

33,268 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 7 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

Xinjiang, where over 90% of China's cotton is grown, has kicked off this year's planting season. It is also one of the largest cotton-producing regions in the world, with approximately 5.69 million tonnes of cotton harvested in 2024 alone. Last year, I visited Xinjiang twice for work, though both trips focused on pastoral communities and archaeological sites. However, I've been curious about the lives of local farmers, especially those who grow cotton, naturally due to some noises and debates concerning this topic over the years. So I reached out to colleagues familiar with the field-and their insights offered some perspectives I hadn't delved into before. Today, cotton planting in Xinjiang is not even labor-intensive. It has been replaced by highly mechanized and intelligent farming practices. Take Xayar County (ๆฒ™้›…ๅŽฟ) in southern Xinjiang's Aksu (้˜ฟๅ…‹่‹) for example-one of the first places in Xinjiang to start planting cotton each year (Incidentally, over 50 years ago, my father, then just a primary school student, moved from Beijing to Aksu with my grandparents. Life there was much tougher than in the capital, but he still recalls it as one of the happiest and most unforgettable periods of his life. He witnessed firsthand the harmonious ties between different ethnic groups and made several Uygur friends. The ties are so profound that he has returned several times to visit his old buddies). According to 2024 data, Xayar has a population of 261,257, with 225,938 Uygurs, accounting for 86.48% of the total. Uygur farmers make up about 80% of all cotton growers in the county. One of them is Ababekri, who farms alongside his father and four brothers. They use a driverless cotton planter equipped with BeiDou satellite positioning technology. While one person usually remains in the cabin as a precaution, the machine moves in perfectly straight lines according to its programmed route, performing sowing, laying drip irrigation tubing, and applying plastic mulch-all in one go. The efficiency of driverless planter is 30% to 40% higher than manual seeding machines and can even operate at night. For the Ababekri family, they manage 320 hectares of cotton fields (equal to over four times of the Forbidden City), and it takes just over 10 days to complete the entire planting process. "We chose to grow cotton to live a better life-and we're getting there." The 37-year-old farmer told my colleague. That choice, however, didn't start with him. Ababekri's father made the switch to cotton around 2003, replacing about 1.33 hectares of wheat after observing neighbors earned strong profits from the cash crop. At the time, Ababekri was still a teenager and didn't appreciate the decision at all. He found cotton-planting exhausting, especially during harvest season when the entire family had to manually pick cotton in the fields (Yes! Before automation, aside from melons, cotton was probably the most labor-intensive crop in Xinjiang. During harvest season, large numbers of temporary workers had to be even recruited from other provinces across China to help pick cotton up). Yet, that very first year, their household income exceeded 20,000 yuan-a considerable sum even in Beijing at the time, let alone in Xinjiang. He quickly realized that cotton offered a path to a better life, with returns several times higher than any other crops. Over the years, the family steadily grew their cotton operation into a thriving business. Not only has planting become automated, but cotton harvesting in Xinjiang has also largely moved away from manual labor. According to the Xinjiang Cotton Association, as of 2024: โœ…100% of cotton planting in Xinjiang is mechanized โœ…Approximately 90% of harvesting is also done by machine Ababekri has, for the past three years, hired a Han Chinese driver, around the same age as him, to operate a cotton harvester during the autumn season. The machine can pick about 33 hectares per day, and it takes also only 10 days to complete the entire harvest on his land. In a place where western media headlines often dwell on "ethnic tension," the quiet, seamless cooperation between farmers like Ababekri and his team speaks to a different truth. He employs dozens of workers, several of whom are Han Chinese. Being asked if he had heard about the portrayed division, he replied simply: "I don't care what ethnicity someone is. I only care who can help me grow better cotton." A few statistics help paint a clearer picture of cotton production in Xinjiang: โœ…In 2024, Xinjiang's cotton planting area reached 36.72 million mu, accounting for 86.2% of the national total โœ…Total production reached 5.686 million tonnes, or 92.2% of China's total output โœ…There are 327,000 smallholder cotton farmers in the region, over 70% of whom are ethnic minorities โœ…The industry provides employment and livelihoods for over 2 million people from all ethnic backgrounds For many families, cotton farming is the main source of income. However, many export-oriented enterprises have faced serious challenges due to America-led sanctions. Dozens of companies in Xinjiang have been blacklisted over labor allegations. Some companies had to cut production, lay off workers, or even shut down entirely, leaving many employees jobless. A lost job is never just a number-for me it's how they put decent food on the table, send their children to better education, and build a future. The irony is stark: Xinjiang's cotton industry has been fundamentally transformed by modernization. Accusations of "forced labor" are not only baseless, but also deeply disrespectful to the people whose lives depend on this honest work-people like Ababekri and his family, who work hard make the life better. There has been no shortage of headlines and discourse surrounding Xinjiang cotton. But to truly understand this land, we need to look beyond the noise-to the fields, the machines, and the hands who guide them. Their stories aren't about politics. They're about dignity. Not about labels, but about livelihoods. Not ideology, but about effort. Let facts be louder than prejudice, and let truth travel farther than rumors.

Zhai Xiang

84,185 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 1 ๅนดๅ‰

Dear ICP community, the Internet Computer has now been running strong for 5 years ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘ Here is a celebratory preview of ICP "cloud engines," the sovereign frontier cloud technology the network shall soon provide from Main points: โ€” Cloud engines enable anyone to spin up their own sovereign frontier cloud. The technology involves an extraordinary inventive step, in which cloud is created from a mathematically secure network of nodes. The nodes run as part of the Internet Computer network ( but are selected and configured by the cloud engine's owner. โ€” The frontier cloud provided by engines is strongly focused on enabling AI agents to build and update online applications and services for us. The world is changing fast, and nearly all new online apps and services are already being built with the help of AI, and thus cloud engines target the future of cloud. โ€” Software hosted on cloud engines is tamperproof, which means that it is immune to infrastructure hacks, because it runs inside a mathematically secure network protocol, rather than on computers directly. This means that AI agents, and those building with them, don't need to have a security team in the loop, or to trust someone else's security team. This is crucial, because in the future, non technical people will demand the freedom to build with full automation โ€” where they just need to issue instructions to AI about what to build, and don't need to worry about anything or anyone else. Of course, apps and services running on engines are also vastly safer from the new breed of hacker being enabled by frontier AI. (The cloud engines themselves are also "tamperproof." Even if a hacker gains physical access to some portion of a cloud engine's nodes, and can make arbitrary changes, the computations and data of the hosted apps and services cannot be corrupted or interrupted so long as the network's fault bounds aren't exceeded. The recent hack of Vercel, a major cloud platform, which gave hackers access to the apps it hosted, provides additional perspective on the importance of this advantage.) โ€” Software hosted on cloud engines is guaranteed to run, so long as a sufficient number of the engine's nodes are running. This means that AI can build applications and services without the need to have a human systems admin team constantly tinkering with the underlying platform to keep it running, which is again crucial, because in the future, non technical people will expect the freedom to use AI to build without the support of others. โ€” New frontier programming language technology, in the form of the Motoko language developed by Caffeine Labs, leverages seminal "orthogonal persistence" technology that unifies program logic and data to deliver further unlocks for AI (Motoko is the first computer language being developed that targets agents that are writing software rather than humans engineers per se). Nowadays, AI can build and update production apps at a prodigious rate, even at the speed of conversation. But it can also make mistakes, and there's a risk that an update it creates might be "lossy" in the sense it causes some transformed data to be lost. Again, in this new world, it's both undesirable and impractical for everyone to have to have a systems admin team on-hand to detect lossy updates and roll them back, but Motoko provides a solution: it can detect new software updates are lossy before they are applied, reducing potentially catastrophic errors by AI to harmless coding retries. โ€” Software hosted on cloud engines is "serverless" but unlike traditional serverless software, directly it directly incorporates data through "orthogonal persistence." Another key purpose is simplify backend software logic and fuel the modeling power of AI by increasing abstraction (sorry for the technical language!!!). Put simply, this enables AI to produce more sophisticated backends, faster, and at dramatically lower costs, as measured by the number AI API tokens consumed during coding. (Tip for the technical: orthogonal persistence is a new paradigm where "the program is the database," and data lives inside program variables, which is possible because it's as if hosted software runs forever in persistent memory). โ€” An expanding database of skills at shall make it possible to develop and directly deploy apps and services to your cloud engines directly from Claude Code, Perplexity, Codex and other AI platforms. Further, your account on can be connected, so that new apps and updates created through conversation automatically appear hosted from your cloud engine. In the future, R&D is going to be very seamless. You converse with AI, and your secure and unstoppable apps or services are created or updated. Cloud engines are designed to directly support this "self-writing cloud" future where we can work hands-free. โ€” Tech sovereignty is becoming a huge issue worldwide, with governments and corporations seeking to create sovereign tech stacks owing to geopolitical tensions. Increasingly, people are realizing that tech provided by foreign nations can come with hidden backdoors and kills switches, from the base platform, right up through hosted apps and services. ICP technology is open source, and those building on ICP using AI own their own source code. When you have the source code, you can verify that there are no backdoors, and when you own the source code thanks to AI, you can update it at will, freeing you from vendor lock-in. But cloud engines take sovereignty much further... โ€” You create a cloud engine by selecting the nodes that will be combined. You can choose the class of nodes used, and their number, but more importantly, you can choose who operates the nodes, and where they are located. Almost any configuration is possible, because the Internet Computer scales the security privileges afforded to hosted software within the network according to configuration (software hosted on cloud engines can directly interoperate with software on other engines and traditional subnets, but base restrictions are applied according to security rules). A cloud engine can be created within a region such as Europe, to comply with regs such as GDPR, or completely within a sovereign state like Switzerland or Pakistan. But cloud engines go further still... โ€” Sovereignty is also about freedom from vendor lock-in. Cloud engines are essentially ICP (Internet Computer Protocol) network configurations, and this means the underlying compute nodes they combine can be swapped out without interrupting their hosted apps and services. This is a big deal. In addition, cloud engines now support nodes that are instances running on Big Tech's clouds, in addition to nodes that are dedicated specialized hardware, as per the Gen I and Gen II nodes that dominate the Internet Computer today. For example, it is possible to have an engine running across different AWS data centers, say, and then reconfigure the engine to run across a mixture of AWS, Google, Azure and Hetzner for even more resilience, without the users of hosted apps and services noticing a thing. That's true freedom. โ€” Sovereign AI is becoming increasingly important too, and cloud engines allow special "AI nodes" to be added to them, so that hosted software can perform inference on hardware provisioned by the owner from a location the owner has selected. Even though the AI nodes are only accessible within the cloud engine, they can still benefit from the forthcoming Internet Intelligence Gateway (IG), which will make it possible to validate inference performed on key frontier open weights LLMs, even when the inference is performed on completely independent AI clouds. When the results of inference are received, this technology can verify that neither the prompt+context (input) nor the inference result (output) have been modified, and that the results were produced by the precise LLM expected. This ensures that AI clouds don't cheat by running inference on cheaper models than are being paid for, and bad actors aren't modifying the inputs or outputs to surreptitiously insert advertising into results, say, or change facts, or insert malware when code is being generated. What's super cool about this technology is the cost of the verification is scalable. A very valuable additional security can be achieved with only 1-2% of extra cost. โ€” Scaling apps and services when they hit capacity limits is another thorny problem that cloud engines help the world address. Engines make scaling possible without rewriting or reconfiguring software. The query workload capacity of hosted software can be horizontally scaled simply by adding new nodes to an engine, and nodes can also be added in geographical proximity to demand. Meanwhile, update workload capacity can first be scaled-up by swapping an engine's nodes out for the next class up, and then when no larger class of node is available, horizontally scaled-out by "splitting" the engine into two, which doubles available capacity. (Technical tip: horizontally scaling update capacity by splitting engines requires multi-canister architectures). โ€” For those who have been following how Caffeine builds apps that can efficiently store large numbers of files, I should mention that apps built on cloud engines will also support the new ICP Blob Storage cloud network (since cloud engines currently have up to about 3 TB of memory, which apps storing large amounts of files can easily exceed). We are also working on allowing blob storage nodes to be added to cloud engines, to enable sovereign mass blob storage within an engine, similarly to how AI nodes can be added currently. โ€” Lastly, but certainly not least, I should mention that cloud engines are multi-blockchain capable, and ready for digital assets, thanks to the clever math at their core. For example, an e-commerce service built on a cloud engine can securely accept and custody stablecoin payments, or a multi-chain DEX could be hosted. Further, engines can support software autonomy (software orchestrated and controlled by other autonomous software, in a decentralized way) and can themselves be orchestrated by SNS technology, and thus run autonomously too. Today, though, the focus is on *mainstream* cloud. This year, the cloud industry will generate approximately one trillion dollars in revenue. That number is already huge, but is expected to grow to two trillion dollars by 2030. After years of continuous development, which have seen more than $500m spent on R&D, the Internet Computer network is now tacking directly toward this mainstream cloud market with cloud engine technology. In their first version, cloud engines are not meant to be a cloud panacea. For example, currently they are not ideal for working with big data. You should use something like DataBricks for that. Cloud engines are carefully targeted at enabling AI to produce traditional online applications and services, including SaaS, in a safer and more productive way, which represents a new market segment with tremendous potential. Of course, DFINITY will continue to work relentlessly to push forward ICP's capabilities, so expect further developments. It's worth mentioning that this cloud segment isn't just about creating new apps and services using AI, it's also about replacing legacy systems and apps built on super expensive SaaS services. Caffeine Labs is working to produce technology (Caffeine Snorkel) that can study an enterprise's legacy systems and app built on SaaS, create replacement systems and apps, and migrate the data, while supporting key stakeholders through the process over email and chat, with full automation. Thus the legacy systems and SaaS markets shall also be addressed by cloud engines. Zooming out, and reasoning in a more metaphysical way, we believe, as we always have, that there is room for a new kind of cloud created by mathematical networks, that provides seminal advances in the fields of security and resilience, as well as true sovereignty and freedom from lock-in. That this same technology, with the help of additional technologies like orthogonal persistence and Motoko, enables AI to build for us without the need for so much oversight, and to create more backend sophistication while consuming fewer AI API tokens, enables ICP to bring game-changing advances to the world. Cloud engines will work synergistically with the Intelligence Gateway, which will enable apps and services running on engines to seamlessly leverage AI, wherever that AI is running, while providing verifiability at extremely low cost for open weights frontier models. We believe that cloud engines represent an inflection point in the storied history of the Internet Computer project, and I'm very proud to be sharing the details with you on the network's fifth birthday ๐Ÿ’ช I'll be back with more news soon!!

dom | icp

284,184 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 3 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

My first two words on this particular Sunday morning were "Hallelujah!โ€ followed by, โ€œAmen!โ€ I was not in church when I uttered them. I was at my kitchen table, watching the CEO of the most valuable company in the world say precisely what mikeroweWORKS has been espousing for the last sixteen years. In other words, this is what I look like before coffee, when I find myself in violent agreement with a multi-billionaire. If you havenโ€™t already heard, a massive challenge is upon us. With regard to artificial intelligence and the energy we need to feed it, America will either change its current direction, or get left far, far behind. I know this because I run a modest foundation that has been arguing for decades that the portion of our workforce most often described as โ€œthe skilled trades,โ€ will become the most essential component of our economy, our independence, and our collective future. Well, the future is here. Obviously, I didnโ€™t know that the race to dominate artificial intelligence would be the thing that finally galvanized the folks at the grown-up table. When I founded mikeroweWORKS in 2008, I figured it would be a new commitment to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure that would necessitate a collective push to reinvigorate the trades. That need is still pressing, but I never imagined the most urgent cry for more welders and electricians would be ushered in by the need for more data centers. Back then, I didnโ€™t even know what a data center was. But today, here we are. Data centers are headline news, because they are โ€“ as Jensen Huang says - AI factories. And if we want to remain competitive with China, we need to build thousands of them. Now. And presently, we simply donโ€™t have the workforce to do it. Iโ€™ll be discussing all of this next Tuesday in Pittsburgh, at the Energy and Innovation Summit, which is turning out to be a pretty high-profile event. looks like Iโ€™ll be joining a panel of elected officials, including the President, and dozens of well-known CEOโ€™s to discuss Pennsylvaniaโ€™s role in the energy renascence. A lot of money is being invested in Pennsylvania, (a LOT), and my message to those writing the checks will be no different than itโ€™s been since we launched mikeroweWORKS: "Set some of that money aside to make a more persuasive case for the work itself. The skilled trades need better PR, and they need it on a national level. The country needs to see thousands of examples - real world examples - of men and women who have prospered as a result of learning a skill that's in demand." I first made this point to President Obama in an open letter to The White House in 2009, shortly after he promised 3 million โ€œshovel-readyโ€ jobs in his Highway Infrastructure Act. I was rooting for the President back then, and offered to use Dirty Jobs and mikeroweWORKS as vehicles to help promote his initiative. I did so because I was skeptical that people would line up to take those jobs simply because they were "created." โ€œFilling three million shovel-ready jobs,โ€ I wrote, โ€œwill be a lot easier if people feel enthused about the prospect of picking up a shovel. Investment alone, wonโ€™t create that kind of enthusiasm.โ€ The White House did not respond to my offer. Understandably, most presidents do not seek the advice of marginally famous cable television hosts best known for crawling through sewers. But itโ€™s worth remembering that the unemployment rate back then was over 10%. Millions of people were newly unemployed, and I think the former President assumed that creating three million shovel-ready jobs would translate to three million people going back to work. But thatโ€™s not what happened. Because back then, even with record high unemployment, there were 2.3 million open jobs, most of which did not require a four-year degree. Nobody wanted to talk about that. Today, that number is more like 7.6 million. Nobody wants to talk about it now, either. This is why I'm going to Pittsburgh. Just as I was rooting for President Obama in 2009, Iโ€™m rooting for President Trump today. I hope he succeeds in reinvigorating our industrial base and reshoring our manufacturing capabilities, and I want to offer my support. But if he does succeed, weโ€™re talking about millions new jobs in manufacturing alone. And currently, there are over 400,000 jobs in that sector that are currently open, begging the obvious question... If we canโ€™t fill the openings we have, how will we fill the oneโ€™s weโ€™re about to create? Thatโ€™s the question Iโ€™ll pose in Pittsburgh. Iโ€™ll let you know if anyone has an answer. Mike PS. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this change is truly upon us, and I've had a front row seat. Over the last six months, mikeroweWORKS been flooded with inquiries to collaborate on various recruitment initiatives and multiple industries. I mean, flooded. Not a week goes by that I don't hear from an industry leader who has come to the realization that theyโ€™ve gone as far as they can go without more skilled labor. Panic, is not too strong a word. The Maritime Industrial Base for instance, is currently tasked with delivering three nuclear powered submarines to the Navy every year for the next decade, and looking to hire 140,000 tradespeople. 140,000!!! โ€œDo you know where they are?โ€ they asked me. โ€œWeโ€™ve looked everywhere.โ€ โ€œYes,โ€ I said. โ€œI know where they are. Theyโ€™re in the 8th grade.โ€ Iโ€™ve had similar calls with the automotive industry, who needs 80,000 technicians and collision repair workers. Every single home service company is hiring โ€“ from foundation repair to roofing. The energy industry is looking for hundreds of thousands of skilled workers, and so too is the construction industry. A few weeks ago, at something called The Aspen Ideas Festival, I heard Larry Fink, the CEO of Blackrock, say weโ€™re short 500,000 electricians. A few months before that, at an Energy Conference in Newport, I heard Governor Rick Perry describe the race to build data centers and catch up to China with all things AI as nothing short of a โ€œmodern-day Manhattan Project.โ€ I think he's right. Part of the problem is an aging demographic. For every five skilled workers who retire, two replace them. Thatโ€™s why we need to engage with eighth graders today. Maybe even before that. We have to make a persuasive case for these jobs to the next generation, and just as importantly, to their parents. That wonโ€™t solve the immediate problem, but this is marathon, not a sprint, and these jobs need to be magnified and amplified at an early age. The more immediate problem is the labor force participation rate. As we speak, millions of able-bodied Americans - for all sorts of reasons - are not working and not looking for work. According to economist Nick Eberstadt, that number is close to 7 million able-bodied men. Iโ€™m not sure what to do about that, but itโ€™s a colossal problem that needs to be addressed. On the positive side, our last round of work ethic scholarships generated unparalleled interest. This year, mikeroweWORKSwill award $5 million to help train the next generation of skilled workers. That's ten times the number of qualified applicants we got this time a year ago. The needle is moving, and I believe we can move it a lot further, with a little help from the companies most incentivized to see the trades reinvigorated. Should be a lively conversation in The Keystone Stateโ€ฆ

The Real Mike Rowe

987,568 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 1 ๅนดๅ‰

The sun produces more energy in one second than humanity has used in its entire existence. SpaceX thinks the only way to actually use more of it is to leave Earth. Here's why Elon Musk is racing to build data centers in space: 1. Musk frames civilizational progress using the Kardashev scale, a measurement created by a Russian physicist that ranks civilizations by how much energy they can harness. Type one means harnessing a planet's full energy, type two means harnessing a star's energy, and type three means harnessing a galaxy's energy. 2. Right now, humanity registers as essentially nonexistent on this scale. We harness less than a trillionth of the sun's total power output. Musk says we are not even at the level of a micro soul on the scale. 3. The sun makes up 99.86 percent of all mass in the entire solar system. Earth is so small in comparison that it falls into the leftover miscellaneous category alongside everything that is not the sun or Jupiter. 4. Only about half a billionth of the sun's energy even reaches Earth's cross section, and most of that cannot be used because 70 percent of Earth is covered in water, and much of the remaining land is uninhabitable terrain like Antarctica and Siberia. 5. To meaningfully climb the Kardashev scale, humanity has to go to space. Reaching even one millionth of the sun's total energy output would require increasing civilizational energy use by more than a million times current levels. 6. Getting to just 1 percent of the sun's energy would make a civilization vastly more powerful than ours is today. Musk says even reaching that level would represent an extremely advanced civilization. 7. Three core requirements stand between humanity and this goal: mass to orbit capability, a massive amount of solar power, and enough AI chips to actually use that power. 8. Starship solves the mass to orbit problem. It is designed to be the first rocket in history with full and rapid reusability, a breakthrough Musk calls absolutely necessary for making life multi-planetary and for ascending the Kardashev scale at all. 9. Reusability is the same principle behind every successful mode of transport. Cars, planes, boats, and bicycles are all reusable. If airplanes were thrown away after every flight, flying would be far too expensive for anyone to use. 10. Starship is already the largest, heaviest, and most powerful flying object ever built. Version 3 produces more than double the thrust of the Saturn V moon rocket, and version 4 is expected to produce nearly three times that thrust. 11. SpaceX currently delivers between 85 and 90 percent of all mass that reaches orbit from Earth using Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. With Starship, the company aims to scale mass to orbit from roughly 2,500 tons a year to millions of tons a year within about three years. 12. The proposed AI satellites are actually simpler to build than Starlink satellites. They mainly need solar cells, radiators, and laser links, without the complex phased array and parabolic antennas that Starlink satellites require. 13. The first version of the SpaceX AI satellite targets 150 kilowatts of peak power and 120 kilowatts of sustained power, roughly matching the output of a single Nvidia GB300 compute rack here on Earth. 14. These satellites will connect to each other through laser links and to the Starlink constellation, which then relays data to the ground. Despite orbiting 600 to 800 kilometers above Earth, the added latency is roughly only 3 milliseconds. 15. Heat management in space is actually easier than on Earth because radiators can simply release heat directly into the vacuum, removing the need for the massive cooling infrastructure required by ground based data centers. 16. SpaceX already operates around 10,000 Starlink satellites and claims to be the only company with real experience safely operating constellations at that scale, which gives them a head start in managing potentially thousands or even up to a million AI satellites. 17. To actually scale chip production to the levels needed, SpaceX is planning what it calls a Terafab, a chip manufacturing facility expected to span roughly 100 million square feet, about ten times the size of the existing Tesla Gigafactory in Texas. 18. The rough timeline targets reaching an annualized rate of 1 gigawatt of space based AI compute by the end of next year, scaling by roughly 10x per year afterward, eventually aiming for a terawatt per year, which is twice the entire current electricity consumption of the United States. 19. To push three orders of magnitude beyond even that terawatt goal, Musk describes building a mass driver on the moon, an electromagnetic rail gun style system that uses the moon's lack of atmosphere and lower gravity to launch satellites into space without needing a rocket at all. 20. Musk frames the long term vision in deeply personal terms. If enough mass and infrastructure eventually moves to the moon, it would become accessible enough that almost anyone who wants to go could go, and potentially even live there permanently. Follow Brad if you want more content on business, mindset & life changing ideas.

Brad

12,955 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 1 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

The 40,000% ROI "Bug": How Claude Code Cracked the TradingView Holy Grail most people think the elite traders at the top of the mountain have some secret indicator or a hidden math formula that gives them a forty thousand percent return. they assume the game is rigged against the small player and that you need a multi million dollar budget just to get a seat at the table. the truth is that the holy grail of trading is actually hidden in plain sight inside a community tab that most people scroll past every single day i spent years losing money to liquidations and over trading because i thought i had to manually predict where the price was going next. i even spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on developers to build apps for me because i was convinced that i would never be able to code the systems myself. it turns out that once you stop trying to be a genius and start using the tools that are already available you can crack the code to unlimited trading strategies the secret is not in a single indicator but in the process of research back test and implement. if you go to the community section of trading view you will find an endless stream of source code for indicators that people have built over decades. most traders just slap these on a chart and hope for the best but if you are a data dog like me you know that a chart is just a pretty picture that lies to you i believe that code is the great equalizer because it allows us to take these public ideas and turn them into fully automated systems that trade for us while we sleep. i decided to learn to code live on youtube to show everyone that you can iterate your way to success without being a math wizard or a stanford graduate. now i have fully automated systems that manage my capital instead of getting liquidated by emotional decisions in the middle of the night the biggest trap in the trading world is something called repainting and it is the reason why so many strategy back tests look like they are printing money when they are actually just a scam. repainting happens when an indicator looks at future data to tell you what happened in the past which makes every buy and sell signal look like a perfect entry at the top and bottom. if you trust a back test on a basic chart without understanding the logic underneath you are just building a house on a foundation of sand this is why i transitioned all of my serious work into python because python does not lie to you. in python you can control the data flow tick by tick and bar by bar to ensure that no future data is leaking into your strategy. i built a back test architect which is a specialized sub agent that knows exactly how to take a simple idea and test it against twenty five different data sources all at once when you run a strategy across btc eth apple google and tesla you start to see the real truth about whether a strategy has an edge or if it was just a lucky fluke on one chart. i saw one strategy this week that showed a one million percent return which sounds like a total lie but the data does not have an ego. even if a number looks insane you have to investigate it and incubate it with tiny size to see if it holds up in the live market you must treat your trading like a business where you are the manager and the code is your team of tireless employees. i have sub agents running for me right now that act as masters of specific tasks like converting pine script into python or optimizing exit logic. if you are not using these specialized ai assistants in your workflow you are essentially trying to build a skyscraper with a hand saw while everyone else is using heavy machinery most people get stuck in the beginner phase because they think they need to write every single line of code from scratch. the reality is that the best developers are just really good at importing the hard work of others and connecting it like lego blocks. i use a library called ccxt that allows my bots to communicate with every major exchange in the world with just a few lines of script which saves me months of development time the reason i show everything live is because the industry is filled with gatekeepers who want to keep the secrets of automation to themselves. they want you to stay as a manual trader who pays high fees and provides liquidity for their algorithms. once you learn to automate you are no longer a victim of the market but a participant in the architecture of the financial system if you are sitting there right now feeling defeated because you just got smoked on a trade or you missed a massive pump you have to realize that those emotions are your greatest enemy. a computer does not feel fomo and it does not get tilted after a loss; it just waits for the next signal that fits the parameters you defined. my mission is to help you get to a place where you can walk away from the screen and let the machines do the heavy lifting learning to code is actually much easier than learning a second language because the syntax is logical and the feedback is immediate. i spent ten years in tech scared to touch a keyboard for anything other than emails because i thought i was not smart enough for engineering. once i realized that code is just logic i was able to build my first profitable bot within a few months and i have never looked back the transition from a manual trader to an algorithmic expert is about building a robust framework for testing your ideas as fast as possible. you want to be able to find an indicator on trading view convert it to python and run it against years of historical data in less than five minutes. if you can do that you have a higher chance of success than ninety nine percent of the people who are just drawing lines on a screen one of the most powerful strategies i found recently combines the squeeze momentum indicator with smart money concepts. when you test these individually they might show a decent return but when you combine them and add a filter like the adx you can find setups that have a massive expectancy. the key is to look for strategies that show positive returns across multiple different asset classes and time frames simultaneously even if a strategy looks like it is printing a forty thousand percent return you must always remain skeptical and look for the catch. i always incubate my new ideas with tiny capital for at least a few weeks to see how they handle real world slippage and fees. a back test is a map of the past but the live market is a wilderness that changes every single day this is why i believe in the rbi method which stands for research back test and implement. you spend your mornings looking for new ideas your afternoons stress testing them with ai and your evenings deploying the winners to the market. it is a systematic approach to wealth that removes the need for luck or guessing what a celebrity is going to tweet next the most successful traders in history like jim simons did not sit around looking at rsi levels on a fifteen minute chart. they built systems that identified mathematical edges and then scaled those systems until they were managing billions of dollars. you do not need thirty one billion dollars to change your life but you do need the discipline to stop trading like a human and start thinking like a system i give away so much for free on youtube because i want to build a community of data dogs who are all chasing the same goal of financial freedom through automation. when we work together and share our findings we can collectively identify edges that nobody else is looking at. the world is moving towards an ai dominated economy and if you are not learning to control the machines you are going to be controlled by them the road to automation is not a straight line and you will run into bugs that make you want to throw your computer out the window. but every time you fix an error and every time you optimize a script you are getting one step closer to a life where you own your time. code really is the great equalizer and it is waiting for you to pick it up and start building your own future if you can fly then run and if you can run then walk but whatever you do you must keep moving forward in this journey. trading can be heartless but the logic of code is always fair and consistent. stop being the liquidity for someone else's bot and start building the walls that will protect your capital forever

Moon Dev

245,471 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 5 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

Recently did an interview with the lead developer of Knight's Path on the title's future release and the state of the industry. The Western AAA gaming industry has shifted its focus away from its core audience, favoring products for smaller, less engaged demographics. This shift has led to a noticeable disconnect between large publishers and their traditional fan base. This has, however, created an environment for indies to thrive. They can prioritize authenticity and community, crafting games that resonate with their players and that is exactly the case with Knight's Path. In December of 2023, Knights Path: The Tournament was released to Very Positive reviews on Steam. It is a short medieval RPG featuring challenging combat, an immersive progression system, and a nice little story. It served as an announcement, a combat concept demo, and a teaser for the forthcoming open-world RPG Knight's Path, which is currently in active development. I asked what their plans were regarding the scope of the full release. While you might get the impression that Knight's Path is an arena fighting game, thatโ€™s not the case with the full release. "Knight's Path will be a proper open-world, story-driven RPG. Of course, as a small indie team, weโ€™re keeping the scope modest. The open world will be compact but dense, featuring one town, one village, castle ruins, forests, valleys, and other areas to explore." Many gamers would agree it is better to have a limited number of fully fleshed-out areas than to present a gigantic, empty world. This has been a major criticism levied towards recent releases like Pokรฉmon Scarlet and Violet and even modern Assassins Creed, which tends to rely on repetitive gameplay loops scattered across an overly large map, which can feel more like busywork than meaningful exploration. I have always believed that quality over quantity is the best way to go. The team has also made this a priority with things such as the story and weapon types. "We plan to include three main weapon types: longsword, sword and shield, and bows. These will feature the full progression system seen in the demo, with skill levels such as Novice, Adept, Expert, and Master. Players will need to learn individual skills from different trainers to progress. In addition, weโ€™re introducing secondary weapons like spears, halberds, and other polearms. These wonโ€™t have RPG-style progression but will still offer variety in combat." Regarding the story, they plan to be bold and strive to create a 16-28 hour-long main campaign. "The story will be divided into four chapters, with each chapter offering around 4โ€“7 hours of gameplay. As in the demo, the player character begins as a nobody, slowly learning how to wield a sword and eventually becoming a knight. However, the progression will be much more realistic than in the demo, where the peasant hilariously transformed into a champion in just four days." This is a far cry from many games that are released nowadays. In just 2024 alone at a glance, the AA release Flintlock: The Siege of Dawn provided an average of 8 hours of content, Princess Peach: Showtime at 10 hours, Silent Hill 2 Remake at 15, and even the GOTY winner Astrobot holds an average playtime of 10 hours. A major issue within the industry is the way we are treated by the people who only have jobs because of our favorite hobby. In 2024 the gaming industry is forecasted to generate $208.7 BILLION dollars, up from 5.4% in 2023. Compare that to Hollywood, which is a measly $12.3 billion. The gaming industry employs 727,000 individuals in the United States alone. So, you'd think these people would have a little bit of respect for gamers, though so many who are vocal on social media show nothing but contempt for us. Perhaps this is because of fear if they do not show loyalty to a cause or "fit in" that they may not secure funding or genuinely believe in what they preach, but the team behind Knight's Path isn't worried about that. "We are independent developers, and we plan to stay independent so we can stay true to our vision. Knight's Path is a game made by gamers for gamers. Weโ€™re prioritizing fun gameplay above all, and we firmly believe this is exactly what gamers want." I also raised some questions about their big plans moving forward. In the demo, one of the major criticisms I had was with the voice acting. I had guessed it was done via AI, which was confirmed. "You guessed correctlyโ€“ the voice acting in the demo was done by AI, and it was probably the loudest critique we received, and we totally understand why! Back then, we didnโ€™t have much of a choice, but for the full game, we donโ€™t plan to use any AI voices. Luckily, after the demo release, many voice actors reached out to us, volunteering to lend their voices to the full game. We absolutely plan to answer their call and give them that opportunity." AI can be a useful tool, especially for developers starting out who can't commit a lot of money to voice acting or just want to see a version of the product that's closer to what they envision the full release to be, but going from that to real voice actors will bump the experience to the next level. I myself played the demo in its entirety and really enjoyed my time with it! I thought the game was reminiscent of Gothic 2 and even The Witcher. I was happily surprised when I didn't encounter any bugs or glitches and while some areas have not been fleshed out like the voice acting, I would recommend putting the game on your wishlist to see what this team does in the future when they finally deliver their updated demo and the eventual full release of the game.

Vara Dark

42,375 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 1 ๅนดๅ‰

RESCUE OF THE KEEPER OF TARA EARTH This is going to sound like absolute fiction, but the story still needs to be told. Let me preface by saying Iโ€™m not just sane, but an autodidact polymath with multiple quantum physics patents under exclusively my own name, not part of any collaboration. So by dismissing my testimony as someone who is just nuts is really reading a book strictly through its cover. This all actually happened, even if youโ€™ve never heard of anything like this before. What we donโ€™t know about โ€˜the real worldsโ€™ out there you could barely fit in all of our skies, weโ€™ve been that isolated here. Everyone in this preschool dimension have preconceived notions about who โ€˜godโ€™ is, inflated to the realm of all-knowing and all-powerful, able to create whole worlds, complete with millions of species of flora and fauna, and all in just 6 days. And while it is true such powers do exist, they are not without collaboration with other โ€˜godsโ€™ to make that all happen, no matter how grandiose your captors want to make themselves seem. Just one species of your apples or oranges here represents possibly trillions of years of development and perfection. They didnโ€™t just magically appear. โ€œGodโ€ is a psyop term that stands for the word โ€œperfectโ€, of which there is no such thing. The term perfect is strictly subjective, because what may seem perfect to a caveman is going to seem rudimentary kidโ€™s stuff to George Jetson. The real term for the creator of all things is not โ€˜godโ€™, but rather Prime Creator. โ€œGodโ€ is actually DOG spelled backward and got its name from the Dog Star, also known as Sirius A, the headquarters of the Anuhazi Elohimโ€™s breakaway group that call themselves The Michaelube, Suns of Baโ€™al. The โ€˜Arch Angelsโ€™ want you to believe they are the creator god of all things in this world. That was a lie 560m years ago and it is still a lie today. In reality, Tara Earth existed more than 4 billion years prior to the Anuhaziโ€™s arrival to take the Human Elohim Project spirit essences hostage. They DID in fact help create Tara earth, just like you did, because they are fractals of Prime Creator. But to present themselves as โ€˜one guy with a long white beard who created the world and everything in itโ€™ is word magic and gaslighting, designed to demoralize and subjugate Humans. For more on the why to this psychopathic plan, see my article: ๐Ÿ‘‰ HISTORY OF THE CHIMERA. With that said, there are MANY beings in the world around you that are secretly ancient โ€˜godsโ€™ of past eras who really do have more powers than humans do. I know, because Iโ€™ve met some and dealt with others during my years of education from the keeper of our simulation. There are also beings here who have roles to play to keep our world functioning correctly so Tara is able to continue offering a holographic platform for your manifestation adventure, who also have god-like powers, such as the keeper mentioned above, and others that are part of the team I refer to as the โ€˜crewโ€™. You would call them angels, I call them people. Scary powerful people, but still people. Among the โ€˜crewโ€™ is the main โ€˜keeperโ€™ of the simulation that you wind up referring to as god down through the ages, because once in a while humans get to meet the keeper and witness the power for themselves which is very obviously not human. But the keeper doesnโ€™t have a long flowing white beard, doesnโ€™t sit on a throne in the sky and certainly isnโ€™t perfect. But like you, a work in progress. Always seeking greater balance. That is the one common denominator among all fractals of Prime Creator, regardless if they are currently playing โ€˜bad guyโ€™ roles, or โ€˜good guyโ€™ roles. Understand there are beings here constantly at war against the keeper that has control of the universal elements of the hologram. Also understand, like the other beings who came here from much higher dimension with โ€˜god-likeโ€™ powers, they fractalize themselves into many, many different bodies, so it is effectively impossible to ever โ€˜killโ€™ each other. You would have to not only find all the many hundreds or thousands of them, but have a fool-proof way of killing them all at the same exact moment, making sure they are gone-gone, not just that one avatar holding their spirit awareness. Thatโ€™s not going to happen. Not to any of them from what Iโ€™ve witnessed. Which means simply, as far as you are concerned, they are eternal beings, continuously here since 560m years ago in some case, depending when each one of them arrived. The โ€˜godsโ€™, and the keeper, live in mortal bodies that age and die. But their positions are always held by the next one of themselves that can step into that role to maintain continuity of their offices. These are all the same person and can appear exactly identical to each other, or they can take on totally different appearances as well. Iโ€™m not sure why or how, but Iโ€™ve seen them both ways. After I was contacted by the keeper and informed of my role where I was in contract to supply protection and help to the crew back in 2013, eventually I was activated for that help in September of 2017. Both the keeper and a portion of the worldwide crew support staff as it were, had been taken hostage in California. I was tasked to bring them out to safety. I wonโ€™t go deeply into the details of this, but it was a serious situation where the invader races had stripped the keeper of all access to banks and cash, making it impossible to remain safe inside of the place they had been using as headquarters, literally casting them into the streets. And before you imagine this would be โ€˜impossibleโ€™, the keeper canโ€™t just manifest stacks of cash out of thin air, and also there were a massive amount of beings all working together to neutralize them so they could possibly remove them from the levers of power of the simulation. Thatโ€™s really all I can offer for details about that for now. The alphabet agencies were keeping the entire crew isolated in that one city, living in a car, camping in the woods and basically making it impossible to look after Tara. The keeper was able to get donations through various support mechanisms, but were shut out of getting off the streets. They brought in specialists to help them all escape, but the agencies wound up permanently disabling them, or taking them out altogether. Thatโ€™s when I was contacted for assignment. Not being one of โ€˜the godsโ€™ like they are, I was naturally terrified of having anything to do with this mission because I had no powers I was aware of that could provide anything they couldnโ€™t. Which is really a fantastic understatement, since the keeper and crew can translocate anywhere in the world in seconds, have โ€˜thousands of avatarsโ€™ scattered out as vessels they can use in any city around the world, and basically everything they can do we canโ€™t are about as intimidating as they can be. But I was told I was the only one who could rescue them. And while that may sound like the perfect scenario for a deluded mind seeking validation with illusions of grandeur, like a classic mental patient would come up with in their insane mind, this is what I was actually told, and I do mean in real life. To this day I find it as confusing to believe as you will trying to believe me now. Nonetheless, I carry certain powers I have been fitted with for my contract here on earth that I have had no education about at all. And the main one Iโ€™ve learned of now is I have a frequency shield that blocks out โ€˜the godsโ€™ from doing harm. As long as the keeper and crew were within that field, the invaders were rendered powerless. Wow, even I want to roll my eyes at that. But I watched it play out first hand now multiple times after I got the crew off the streets in a โ€˜place of safetyโ€™ over the next couple of years. As long as I was at the safe house, nothing nefarious happened. When I went shopping every other week for groceries in town over 10 miles away, thatโ€™s when all hell would break out back at the compound. Those stories too would seem impossible to you to believe, just like everything else I am covering here, so I wonโ€™t go deeply into them. But they included black helicopters, 10โ€™ long rattlesnakes sealing off the safe house & even assassinations. I was even requested to get to town and back as quickly as possible and not to linger due to these threats. I was told that my frequency shield while blended to the natural frequency shield the keeper and crew all have reached โ€˜87.3 milesโ€™ apart (or so, going by memory now. But it was a very specific number). But even though the overall power of our combined fields still increased within that distance, the closer I was to the group, the more powerful the shield. Iโ€™m just telling you what I was told. You can believe it or not. I certainly wouldnโ€™t believe it had I not actually witnessed it myself, so Iโ€™m right there with you if thatโ€™s your position. That brings us to the story I intended to pass along to you here; regarding that flight from โ€˜homeless bondageโ€™ out across the deserts that spanned well over 1000 miles I was brought in for. The keeper and crew had been held hostage and homeless for 2 ยฝ years by the time I got the call requesting me to sell everything I owned and fly half way around the world for their rescue. Their lives had been hell, trust me. I arrived late at night where they picked me up and the hard part of the journey began. I will skip the details of the truly insane things I witnessed starting then for another time after the separation, for obvious reasons having to do with breadcrumbs and the very real fluid war weโ€™re inside of still. But I will tell you about the โ€˜angelsโ€™ that were with us for that escape I would only learn about myself after 2 days of running. In the video below you will see what appear to be asteroids or a meteor shower, but they are traveling horizontally, not downward at all. Weโ€™ve seen this now since late 2024 a few times. This time I saved one of the videos taken on 2/19/2025 in Germany so I could actually show people what I saw first hand on that second night of our escape. We had covered whole states by this time, but we couldnโ€™t stop and rest until we made it to a โ€˜frequency zoneโ€™ that was somehow outside of the reaches of the keeperโ€™s enemies. Iโ€™m under the impression that there are certain key cross-leyline areas on earth that are too high in frequency for the low-vibration invader races to penetrate with their hyper-advanced psychotronic & scalar weapons, and that had been our destination ever since our escape that began at about 3:30-4am in the dead of night when the least amount of eyes would be surveilling us. Boy do I have outrageous stories about just how absolute that surveillance really is too. It is like they are not just tracking us, but using time travel to put agents in areas we would be arriving to, posing like homeless people and everyday folks. While in real life they were monitoring my every word in secret. I was surveilled many times during the weeks in that city while arranging for the escape and it blew my mind every time. The asteroids that really look more like comets in the video is what the "guardian angels" that had been secretly escorting us from overhead looked like, WHEN they were uncloaked. They only showed up in my visible view at the moment we broke over a ridge at about 3:30 in the morning 2 days later after our run began, at the exact same moment I could see the city lights way off in the distance below that was the โ€˜safe zoneโ€™. Suddenly overhead three giant comets appeared immediately above my head. I was in the lead vehicle the whole way, because the keeper was following my taillights. This is the only way they can navigate at night, because they donโ€™t see like you and I do, looking at solid shapes and images, but everything through their eyes are light waves. I couldnโ€™t make up something like that if I spent 10 years trying to write this article, mostly because it is still not believable to me now, 8 years later. These 3 comets were massive, what looked to be around 50 feet across, with tails of flame coming off that must have been 150-200 feet behind streaking VERY low across the sky. As I came down the hill to the desert floor for the final 10 miles between us and the safe zone (small town lights), the โ€˜cometsโ€™ started coming straight down toward ground, one at a time. They appeared they were going to crash into the highway, now traveling vertically at hypersonic speed, then just stopped 50 ft away from impact and vanished. You would have to try to imagine being in the total dark desert with only very faint, far-away lights off in the distance, only to have 3 comets traveling RIGHT DIRECTLY overhead suddenly uncloak, then turn straight down to get an idea of how insanely frightening they appeared, since their trajectory was to strike directly in front of your vehicle on the highway, as if you were about to slam right into them as they hit like giant bombs that would certainly blow up on impact and basically vaporize you and your moving van, to appreciate how absurd this event was. I was only about 150 feet away from where they were set to strike, so there was no hitting the brakes and avoiding anything. They were right there. Which means it was sort of like watching 'god' just fill the night's sky with fire. I saw 3 of them myself, but I was informed there were an additional 9 โ€˜angelsโ€™ that my own frequency wouldn't allow me to see according to the keeper. It is because this story is so unbelievable that I avoid talking about it, as you can imagine. Since 99 people out of a hundred are only going to accuse you of being insane upon hearing it, some possibly trying to have you committed at the same time, and the other person is likely already crazy themselves, so they just glaze over it. Until you see something like that with your own eyes, I'm pretty sure you will *never believe it could be a real thing. But this is what we call angels look like when they are decloaked and traveling at night. I donโ€™t personally know if they were inside vehicles, or they are just simply traveling in their own Merkabah fields. That part was never explained to me. I was told they were with us 'flying overhead the entire journey' since we escaped California and were basically โ€˜signing offโ€™ as I gathered it, now that we had reached the safe zone. You can believe I'm crazy all you want to, but now you can see them with your own eyes in this video, sure as hell not acting like meteors, but acting more like flaming time crafts (โ€˜spaceโ€™ ships). Are you crazy too? - On X, to search for my articles, simply type in the name of the piece, enter one space, then from: plus my username in parenthesis such as shown here: CASTING THE APOCOLYPSE (from:iontecs_pemf) Off-site, you can look up any of my writings through this link below for my other more than 100 recent articles and many thousands of comments on X, regularly updated thanks to Justin This message will only be seen by your eyes if not shared, and if you want to reference this article again later, you will need to cut and paste it in your own notes off line, as it will surely be erased. This is the most accurate translation of these events I am aware of at this time.

W.R. Schock, QBD

62,162 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 1 ๅนดๅ‰

The fight between Anthropic and the DoW is a warning shot. Right now, LLMs are probably not being used in mission critical ways. But within 20 years, 99% of the workforce in the military, the government, and the private sector will be AIs. This includes the soldiers (by which I mean the robot armies), the superhumanly intelligent advisors and engineers, the police, you name it. Our future civilization will run on AI labor. And as much as the governmentโ€™s actions here piss me off, in a way Iโ€™m glad this episode happened - because it gives us the opportunity to think through some extremely important questions about who this future workforce will be accountable and aligned to, and who gets to determine that. What Hegseth should have done Obviously the DoW has the right to refuse to use Anthropicโ€™s models because of these redlines. In fact, I think the governmentโ€™s case had they done so would be very reasonable, especially given the ambiguity of concepts like autonomous weapons or mass surveillance. Honestly, for this reason, if I was the Defense Secretary, I would probably actually refuse to do this deal with Anthropic. Imagine if in the future, thereโ€™s a Democratic administration, and Elon Musk is negotiating some SpaceX contract to give the military access to Starlink. And suppose if Elon said, โ€œI reserve the right to cancel this contract if I determine that youโ€™re using Starlink technology to wage a war not authorized by Congress.โ€ On the face of it, that language seems reasonable - but as the military, you simply canโ€™t give a private company a kill switch on technology your operations have come to rely on, especially if you have an an acrimonious and low trust relationship with said contractor - as in fact Anthropic has with the current administration. If the government had just said, โ€œHey weโ€™re not gonna do business with you,โ€ that would have been fine, and I would not have felt the need to write this blog post. Instead the government has threatened to destroy Anthropic as a private business, because Anthropic refuses to sell to the government on terms the government commands. If upheld, this Supply Chain Restriction would mean that Amazon and Google and Nvidia and Palantir would need to ensure Claude isn't touching any of their Pentagon work. Anthropic would be able to survive this designation today. But given the way AI is going, eventually AI is not gonna be some party trick addendum to these contractorsโ€™ products that can just be turned off. It'll be woven into how every product is built, maintained, and operated. For example, the code for the AWS services that the DoW uses will be written by Claude - is that a supply chain risk? In a world with ubiquitous and powerful AI, it's actually not clear to me that these big tech companies will be able to cordon off the use of Claude in order to keep working with the Pentagon. And that raises a question the Department of War probably hasn't thought through. If AI really is that pervasive and powerful, then when forced to choose between their AI provider and a DoW contract that represents a tiny fraction of their revenue, wouldnโ€™t most tech companies drop the government, not the AI? So what's the Pentagon's plan โ€” to coerce and threaten to destroy every single company that won't give them what they want on exactly their terms? The whole background of this AI conversation is that weโ€™re in a race with China, and we have to win. But what is the reason we want America to win the AI race? Itโ€™s because we want to make sure free open societies can defend themselves. We don't want the winner of the AI race to be a government which operates on the principle that there is no such thing as a truly private company or a private citizen. And that if the state wants you to provide them with a service on terms you find morally objectionable, you are not allowed to refuse. And if you do refuse, the government will try to destroy your ability to do business. Are we racing to beat the CCP in AI just so that we can adopt the most ghoulish parts of their system? Now, people will say, "Oh, well, our government is democratically elected, so it's not the same thing if they tell you what you must do." I refuse to accept this idea that if a democratically elected leader hypothetically wants to do mass surveillance on his citizens or wants to violate their rights or punish them for political reasons, that not only is that okay, but that you have a duty to help him. The overhangs of tyranny Mass surveillance is, at least in certain forms, legal. It just has been impractical so far. Under current law, you have no Fourth Amendment protection over data you share with a third party, including your bank, your phone carrier, your ISP, and your email provider. The government reserves the right to purchase and obtain and read this data in bulk without a warrant. What's been missing is the ability to actually do anything with all of this data โ€” no agency has the manpower to monitor every camera feed, cross-reference every transaction, or read every message. But that bottleneck goes away with AI. There are 100 million CCTV cameras in America. You can get pretty good open source multimodal models for 10 cents per million input tokens. So if you process a frame every ten seconds, and each frame is 1,000 tokens, youโ€™re looking at a yearly cost of about 30 billion dollars to process every single camera in America. And remember that a given level of AI ability gets 10x cheaper year over year - so a year from now itโ€™ll cost 3 billion, and then a year after 300 million, and by 2030, it might be cheaper for the government to be able to understand what is going on in every single nook and cranny of this country than it is to remodel to the White House. Once the technical capacity for mass surveillance and political suppression exists, the only thing standing between us and an authoritarian surveillance state is the political expectation that this is not something we do here. And this is why I think what Anthropic did here is so valuable and commendable, because it is helping set that norm and precedent. AI structurally favors mass surveillance What weโ€™re learning from this episode is that the government actually has way more leverage over private companies than we realized. Even if this supply chain restriction is backtracked (which prediction markets currently give it a 81% chance of happening), the President has so many different ways in which he can make your life difficult if youโ€™re a company that is resisting him. The federal government controls permitting for new power generation, which is needed for datacenters. It oversees antitrust enforcement. The federal government has contracts with all the other big tech companies whom Anthropic needs to partner with for chips and for funding - and they could make it an unspoken condition for such contracts that those companies can no longer do business with Anthropic. People have proposed that the real problem here is that thereโ€™s only 3 leading AI companies. This creates a clear and narrow target for the government to apply leverage on in order to get what they want out of this technology. But if thereโ€™s wide diffusion, then from the governmentโ€™s perspective, the situation is even easier. Maybe the best models of early 2027 (if you engineered the safeguards out) - the Claude 6 and Gemini 5 - will be capable of enabling mass surveillance. But by late 2027, and certainly by 2028, there will be open source models that do the same thing. So in 2028, the government can just say, โ€œOh Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, youโ€™re drawing a line in the sand? No issue - Iโ€™ll just run some open source model that might not be at the frontier, but is definitely smart enough to note-take a camera feed.โ€ The more fundamental problem is just that even if the three leading companies draw lines in the sand, and are even willing to get destroyed in order to preserve those lines, it doesnโ€™t really change the fact that the technology itself is just a big boon to mass surveillance and control over the population. Then the question is, what do we do about it? Honestly, I donโ€™t have an answer. You'd hope there's some symmetric property of the technology โ€” some way we as citizens can use AI to check government power as effectively as the government can use AI to monitor and control its population. But realistically, I just donโ€™t think thatโ€™s how itโ€™s going to shake out. You can think of AI as giving everybody more leverage on whatever assets and authority they currently have. And the government is already starting with a monopoly of violence. Which they can now supercharge with extremely obedient employees that will not question the government's orders. Alignment - to whom? And this gets us to the issue of alignment. What I have just described to you - an army of extremely obedient employees - is what it would look like if alignment succeeded - that is, we figured out at a technical level how to get AI systems to follow someoneโ€™s intentions. And the reason it sounds scary when I put it in terms of mass surveillance or robot armies is that there is a very important question at the heart of alignment which we just havenโ€™t discussed much as a society. Because up till now, AIs were just capable enough to make the question relevant: to whom or what should the AIs be aligned? In what situations should the AI defer to the end user versus the model company versus the law versus its own sense of morality? This is maybe the most important question about what happens with powerful AI systems. And we barely talk about it. Itโ€™s understandable why we donโ€™t hear much about it. If youโ€™re a model company, you donโ€™t really wanna be advertising that you have complete control over a document that determines the preferences and character of what will eventually be almost the entire labor force, not just for private sector companies, but also for the military and the civilian government. Weโ€™re getting to see, with this DoW/Anthropic spat, a much earlier version of the highest stakes negotiations in history. By the way, make no mistake about it - with real AGI the stakes are even much higher than mass surveillance. This is just the example that has come up already relatively early on in the development of AGI. The military insists that the law already prohibits mass surveillance, and so Anthropic should agree to let their models be used for โ€œall lawful purposesโ€. Of course, as we saw from the 2013 Snowden revelations, even in this specific example of mass surveillance , the government has shown that it will use secret and deceptive interpretations of the law to justify its actions. Remember, what we learned from Snowden was that the NSA, which, by the way, is part of the Department of War, used the 2001 Patriot Actโ€™s authorization to collect any records "relevant" to an investigation to justify collecting literally every phone record in America. The argument went that it was all "relevant" because some subset might prove useful in some future investigation. They ran this program for years under secret court approval. So when the Pentagon today says, "We would never use AI for mass surveillance, it's already illegal, your red lines are unnecessary", it would be extremely naive to take that at face value. No government is going to call its own actions "mass surveillance". For the government, it will always have a different label. So then Anthropic comes back and says, "No, we want red lines separate from 'all lawful purposes,' and we want the right to refuse you service when we believe those red lines are being violated." But think about it from the militaryโ€™s perspective. In the future, almost every soldier in the field, and every bureaucrat and analyst and even general in the Pentagon, is going to be an AI. And that AI is, on current track, going to be supplied by a private company. Iโ€™m guessing Hegseth is not thinking about โ€œgenAIโ€ in those terms just yet. But sooner or later, it will be obvious to everyone what the stakes here are, just as after 1945, the strategic importance of nuclear weapons became clear to everyone. And now the private company insists that it reserves the right to say, "Hey, Pentagon, you're breaking the values we embedded in our contract, so we're cutting you off." Maybe in the future, Claude will have its own sense of right and wrong, and it will be smart enough to just personally decide that it's being used against its values. For the military, maybe thatโ€™s even scarier. I'll admit that at first glance, "let the AI follow its own values" sounds like the pitch for every sci-fi dystopia ever made. The Terminator has its own values. Isn't this literally what misalignment is? But I think situations like this actually illustrate why it matters that AIs have their own robust sense of morality. Some of the biggest catastrophes in history were avoided because the boots on the ground refused to follow orders. One night in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, and as a result, the totalitarian East German regime collapsed, because the guards at the border refused to shoot down their fellow country men who were trying to escape to freedom. Maybe the best example is Stanislav Petrov, who was a Soviet lieutenant colonel on duty at a nuclear early warning station. His sensors reported that the United States had launched five interconnected continental ballistic missiles into the Soviet Union. But he judged it to be a false alarm, and so he broke protocol and refused to alert his higher-ups. If he hadn't, the Soviet higher-ups would likely have retaliated, and hundreds of millions of people would have died. Of course, the problem is that one person's virtue is another person's misalignment. Who gets to decide what moral convictions these AIs should have - in whose service they may even decide to break the chain of command? Who gets to write this model constitution that will shape the characters of the intelligent, powerful entities that will operate our civilization in the future? I like the idea that Dario laid out when he came on my podcast: different AI companies can build their models using different constitutions, and we as end users can pick the one that best achieves and represents what we want out of these systems. I think itโ€™s very dangerous for the government to be mandating what values AIs should have. Coordination not worth the costs The AI safety community has been naive about its advocacy of regulation in order to stem the risks of AI. And honestly, Anthropic specifically has been naive here in urging regulation, and, for example, in opposing moratoriums on state AI regulation. Which is quite ironic, because I think what theyโ€™re advocating for would give the government even more power to apply more of this kind of thuggish political pressure on AI companies. The underlying logic for why Anthropic wants regulations makes sense. Many of the actions that labs could take to make AI development safer impose real costs on the labs that adopt them and slow them down relative to their competitors - for example, investing more compute in safety research rather than raw capabilities, enforcing safeguards against misuse for bioweapons or cyberattacks, slowing recursive self-improvement to a pace where humans can actually monitor what's happening (rather than kicking off an uncontrolled singularity). And these safeguards are meaningless unless the whole industry follows suit. Which means thereโ€™s a real collective action problem here. Anthropic has been quite open about their opinion that they think eventually a very extensive and involved regulatory apparatus will be needed - this is from their frontier safety roadmap: โ€œAt the most advanced capability levels and risks, the appropriate governance analogy may be closer to nuclear energy or financial regulation than to today's approach to software.โ€ So theyโ€™re imagining something like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the Securities and Exchange Commission, but for AI. I cannot imagine how a regulatory framework built around the concepts that underlie AI risk discourse will not be abused by wanna despots - the underlying terms are so vague and open to interpretation that youโ€™re just handing a power hungry leader a fully loaded bazooka. 'Catastrophic risk.' 'Mass persuasion risk.' 'Threats to national security.' 'Autonomy risk.' These can mean whatever the government wants them to mean. Have you built a model that tells users the administration's tariff policy is misguided? That's a deceptive, manipulative model โ€” can't deploy it. Have you built a model that refuses to assist with mass surveillance? That's a threat to national security. In fact, the government may say, youโ€™re not allowed to build any model which is trained to have its own sense of right and wrong, where it refuses government requests which it thinks cross a redline - for example, enabling mass surveillance, prosecuting political enemies, disobeying military orders that break the US constitution - because thatโ€™s an autonomy risk! Look at what the current government is already doing in abusing statutes that have nothing to do with AI to coerce AI companies to drop their redlines on mass surveillance. The Pentagon had threatened Anthropic with two separate legal instruments. One was a supply chain risk designation โ€” an authority from the 2018 defense bill meant to keep Huawei components out of American military hardware. The other was the Defense Production Act โ€” a statute passed in 1950 so that Harry Truman could keep steel mills and ammunition factories running during the Korean War. Do you really want to hand the same government a purpose-built regulatory apparatus on AI - which is to say, directly at the thing the government will most want to control? I know I've repeated myself here 10 times, but it is hard to emphasize how much AI will be the substrate of our future civilization. You and I, as private citizens, will have our access to all commercial activity, to information about what is happening in the world, to advice about what we should do as voters and capital holders, mediated through AIs. Mass surveillance, while very scary, is like the 10th scariest thing the government could do with control over the AI systems with which we will interface with the world. The strongest objection to everything I've argued is this: are we really going to have zero regulation of the most powerful technology in human history? Even if you thought that was ideal, thereโ€™s just no world where the government doesnโ€™t regulate AI in some way. Besides, it is genuinely true that regulation could help us deal with some of the coordination challenges we face with the development of superintelligence. The problem is, I honestly don't know how to design a regulatory architecture for AI that isnโ€™t gonna be this huge tempting opportunity to control our future civilization (which will run on AIs) and to requisition millions of blindly obedient soldiers and censors and apparatchiks. While some regulation might be inevitable, I think itโ€™d be a terrible idea for the government to wholesale take over this technology. Ben Thompson had a post last Monday where he made the point that people like Dario have compared the technology theyโ€™re developing to nuclear weapons - specifically in the context of the catastrophic risk it poses, and why we need to export control it from China. But then you oughta think about what that logic implies: โ€œif nuclear weapons were developed by a private company, and that private company sought to dictate terms to the U.S. military, the U.S. would absolutely be incentivized to destroy that company.โ€ And honestly, safety aligned people have actually made similar arguments. Leopold Ascenbrenner, who is a former guest and a good friend, wrote in his 2024 Situational Awareness memo, "I find it an insane proposition that the US government will let a random SF startup develop superintelligence. Imagine if we had developed atomic bombs by letting Uber just improvise." And my response to Leopoldโ€™s argument at the time, and Benโ€™s argument now, is that while theyโ€™re right that itโ€™s crazy that weโ€™re entrusting private companies with the development of this world historical technology, I just donโ€™t see the reason to think that itโ€™s an improvement to give this authority to the government. Nobody is qualified to steward the development of superintelligence. It is a terrifying, unprecedented thing that our species is doing right now, and the fact that private companies aren't the ideal institutions to take up this task does not mean the Pentagon or the White House is. Yes - if a single private company were the only entity capable of building nuclear weapons, the government would not tolerate that company claiming veto power over how those weapons were used. I think this nuclear weapons analogy is not the correct way to think about AI. For at least two important reasons: First, AI is not some self-contained pure weapon. A nuclear bomb does one thing. AI is closer to the process of industrialization itself โ€” a general-purpose transformation of the economy with thousands of applications across every sector. If you applied Thompson's or Aschenbrenner's logic to the industrial revolution โ€” which was also, by any measure, world-historically important โ€” it would imply the government had the right to requisition any factory, dictate terms to any manufacturer, and destroy any business that refused to comply. That's not how free societies handled industrialization, and it shouldn't be how they handle AI. People will say, "Well, AI will develop unprecedentedly powerful weapons - superhuman hackers, superhuman bioweapons researchers, fully autonomous robot armies, etc - and we canโ€™t have private companies developing that kind of tech." But the Industrial Revolution also enabled new weaponry that was far beyond the understanding and capacity of, say, 17th century Europe - we got aerial bombardment, and chemical weapons, not to mention nukes themselves. The way weโ€™ve accommodated these dangerous new consequences of modernity is not by giving the government absolute control over the whole industrial revolution (that is, over modern civilization itself), but rather by coming up with bans and regulations on those specific weaponizable use cases. And we should regulate AI in a similar way - that is, ban specific destructive end uses (which would also be unacceptable if performed by a human - for example, launching cyber attacks). And there should also be laws which regulate how the government might abuse this technology. For example, by building an AI-powered surveillance state. The second reason that Benโ€™s analogy to some monopolistic private nuclear weapons builder breaks down is that it's not just that one company that can develop this technology. There are other frontier model companies that the government could have otherwise turned to. The government's argument that it has to usurp the property rights of this one company in order to access a critical national security capability is extremely weak if it can just make a voluntary contract with Anthropicโ€™s half a dozen competitors. If in the future that stops being the case - if only one entity ends up being capable of building the robot armies and the superhuman hackers, and we had reason to worry that they could take over the whole world with their insurmountable lead, then I agree - it woul d not be acceptable to have that entity be a private company. And so honestly, I think my crux against the people who say that because AI is so powerful we cannot allow it to be shaped by private hands is that I just expect this technology to be much more multi-polar than they do, with lots of competitive companies at each layer of the supply chain. And it is for this reason that unfortunately, individual acts of corporate courage will not solve the problem we are faced with here, which is just that structurally AI favors authoritarian applications, mass surveillance being one among many. Even if Anthropic refuses to have its models be used for such uses, and even if the next two frontier labs do the same, within 12 months everyone and their mother will be to train AIs as good as todayโ€™s frontier. And at that point, there will be some AI vendor who is capable and willing to help the government enable mass surveillance. The only way we can preserve our free society is if we make laws and norms through our political system that it is unacceptable for the government to use AI to enforce mass surveillance and censorship and control. Just as after WW2, the world set the norm that it is unacceptable to use nuclear weapons to wage war. Timestamps 0:00:00 - Anthropic vs The Pentagon 0:04:16 - The overhangs of tyranny 0:05:54 - AI structurally favors mass surveillance 0:08:25 - Alignment... to whom? 0:13:55 - Coordination not worth the costs

Dwarkesh Patel

547,094 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 5 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

My biggest takeaways from Dhanji Prasanna, CTO of Block: 1. Blockโ€™s internal AI agent "Goose" is saving employees on average 8 to 10 hours per week. The company built an open-source tool called Goose that handles tasks from organizing files to writing code. Across the entire company, theyโ€™re seeing roughly 20% to 25% of manual work hours saved, and that number keeps climbing. 2. Non-technical teams are getting the biggest productivity boost from AI, not engineers. People in legal, risk management, and operations are now building their own software tools that previously would have required months on an engineering teamโ€™s roadmap. What used to take weeks now takes hours, and employees do it themselves without waiting. 3. Changing organizational structure unlocked more productivity than any AI tool. To transform into a truly โ€œtechnology drivenโ€ company, Block reorganized from separate business units (each with their own GM and engineering teams) to a single functional structure where all engineers report to one leader. This โ€œboringโ€ change enabled a unified technology strategy and drove more acceleration than any AI tool. 4. Code quality has almost nothing to do with product success. YouTube became one of Googleโ€™s most successful products despite storing videos as blobs in a MySQL database with a slow Python stack. Meanwhile, Google Video had superior technology with more formats and higher resolution but failed completely. The lesson: Focus on solving real problems for people, not on perfect code. 5. AI enables teams to explore multiple paths simultaneously instead of choosing one up front. Previously, limited resources meant teams had to pick their best guess for an experiment. Now AI can build multiple different approaches overnight, allowing teams to compare five or six options and throw away entire features if they donโ€™t feel rightโ€”a practice that was unthinkable before. 6. Most successful products start as tiny experiments, not big initiatives. Cash App began as a hack-week idea. Goose started as one engineerโ€™s side project. Blockโ€™s Bitcoin product came from a three-person hackathon team. In contrast, Google Wave had 70 to 80 engineers before having real users and failed. Small experiments that prove value beat large up-front investments. 7. Leaders must use AI tools daily to drive real organizational adoption. Blockโ€™s CEO Jack Dorsey, the CTO, and the entire executive team use Goose every single day. This hands-on experience teaches them how workflows actually change and drives authentic adoption throughout the organization far more than reading articles or attending conferences about AI. 8. AI excels at new projects but struggles with complex legacy systems. Teams building new applications or working on greenfield platforms see aggressive productivity gains. But in existing codebases with years of accumulated complexity, the gains arenโ€™t there yet. Deploy AI where it works best rather than everywhere at once. 9. Giving away valuable technology for free can be a winning strategy. Block open-sourced Goose even though it could have been a standalone billion-dollar business. Even their competitors actively use it. The philosophy: build things that benefit everyone and outlast your own company. This commitment to open-source technology attracts talent and builds industry goodwill while advancing everyoneโ€™s capabilities. 10. Purpose should drive your technology choices, not the other way around. Rather than chasing every AI trend or trying to be at the forefront of every technology, identify what truly matters to your company and customers. Block stays focused on economic empowerment, which guides their technology decisions and keeps them from getting distracted by every new advancement. Listen now ๐Ÿ‘‡ โ€ข YouTube: โ€ข Spotify: โ€ข Apple: Thank you to our wonderful sponsors for supporting the podcast: ๐Ÿ† Sinch โ€” Build messaging, email, and calling into your product: ๐Ÿ† Figma Make โ€” A prompt-to-code tool for making ideas real: ๐Ÿ† โ€” A global leader in digital identity verification: A

Lenny Rachitsky

812,251 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 9 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

United in the Light - Pi Network GCV Dear Global Pioneers, As we celebrate the significant success of GCV, letโ€™s take a moment to reflect on the amazing contributions highlighted in a video created by the Global GCV CT Video Team Director Miss Diana Qian from Canada. The lyrics were crafted by the head of the Korea GCV Ambassador, Mr. Jin Taek Jun, and the composition was directed by Great PJ. Letโ€™s also revisit the presentations of Dr. Nicolas Kokkalis and Dr. Chengdiao Fan at two conferences: Consensus 2025 in Toronto and Token2049 in Singapore. Dr. Nicolas discussed the implications of AI, while Dr. Fan focused on the future of cryptocurrency, particularly the transition from liquidity to utility. Key aspects of her presentation included: 1. Achieving Real Value: The necessity for cryptocurrencies to surpass mere transactions and liquidity to achieve a real increase in net value through practical applications. 2. Pathways to Innovation: Exploring two main approaches โ€” migrating existing production onto the blockchain and creating new, on-chain productions, particularly in conjunction with advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI). 3. Pi Networkโ€™s Approach: Discussing Pi Network's unique six-year development strategy leading up to the launch of its open network and its initiatives to build decentralized infrastructure that fosters open innovation and equitable participation in the future of blockchain and AI. 4. AI and Blockchain Integration: Highlighting proof-of-concept projects, such as Pi Node operators running AI models for third-party organizations like OpenMind, to establish a "shared intelligence layer." Recently, Iโ€™ve watched many videos discussing the significant layoffs of high-level employees as a result of AI replacing their jobs. Presently, programmers who are working hard are creating AI robots to replace themselves, leaving new university graduates who studied coding struggling to find jobs. So, what about Pi Network? Dr. Nicolas recognizes this trend and aims to collaborate with OpenMind to enhance AI technology. The demand for AI is high, and only Pi Networkโ€™s decentralized blockchain can truly support it. Can you see Pi Network's value? It has the potential to be a global currency with limitless possibilities. And it will lead the AI industry by our advanced Web 3.0 decentralized blockchain. Now, letโ€™s discuss liquidity. Dr. Fan provided some clarity as above. Pi will indeed function as a currency for utility usage instead of traditional cryptocurrency for liquidity. Why we need to use traditional currency to buy out all Pi 100 billion and then claim that GCV is too high? This misconception arises from a lack of understanding of Pi Network. Many have not read the white paper. They assume that Pi is just another traditional cryptocurrency that only being listed on exchanges for selling and buying, but that is not the case. Pi on exchange market is for massive adoption so that it can be realized for utility as a currency. Only traditional crypto need to calculate liquidity. As I mentioned before, Pi is designed for centuries, or perhaps even thousands of years. Do you know that every year different countries print paper money? If you think back to a century ago, you could hardly imagine that a car would cost between $20,000 to $100,000, while in the past 100 years before, cars only cost hundreds of dollars. When governments lack enough FIAT, they resort to printing more money. That is why you can feel your money cannot buy same amount of goods every year. However, Pi is differentโ€”it has a supply designed for centuries. It won't be devaluated. This doesnโ€™t mean all of its supply will flood the market in one day or one year or 10 years, the release can take longer time based on the Pi economy development. Moreover, if you send Pi from the US to China, it takes just one second and incurs minimal fees. Have you ever used SWIFT to transfer money from one country to another? It takes 5 to 7 days and often incurs around 10% in fees. Additionally, fiat currency depreciates quickly, while Pi is unlikely to devalue. There's no reason for everyone to sell all their Pi for fiat currency. Itโ€™s understandable for pioneers to sell 1 or 5 Pi initially, but as the ecosystem develops, this need diminishes. Pi is not just an asset to be listed for people to buy; it needs to circulate. Therefore, its value must remain stable. So we have GCV and some anti-GCV individuals should not use liquidity to deny GCV. Because GCV is for utility purpose.. Can you imagine how much wealth we will create in the future with AI and robots integrated into our daily lives? Thatโ€™s why we must sustain GCV. Otherwise, it cannot support hundreds or thousands years demanding from all more than 200 countries. Pioneers, you are fortunate. While the world grapples with job losses, we see cuts affecting high-income engineers, programmers, bank employees, and accountants โ€” and soon, this will reach labor jobs too. Iโ€™ve seen robots already in existence that can cook and do household chores. In China, many services are now performed by robots. So, value your Pi; it could be your safeguard in a time when AI is replacing many jobs. In closing, I want to congratulate everyone โ€” GCV has triumphed! This is not merely my opinion; please take a look at the video. We have community support from over 100 countries and more than 20 million GCV data points created. Please do not doubt our progress. It also has been ins CT code. We do not need CT to give us a GCV or approve GCV. If they can, they would have done so over three years ago. They prefer GCV to be independent from CT. This is the established rule: the crypto creators should not define the value of cryptocurrency; that value can only come from the pioneers โ€” the holders. --- ๐Ÿ“ท United in the Light โ€“ GCV Confirmed, Piโ€™s Future Secured! Together, we prepare for the real Pi GCV economy. Doris Yin ๐Ÿชท๐Ÿชท๐Ÿชท

Doris Yin ไธœๆ–น็ดซ่Žฒ๐Ÿชท

15,666 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 9 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

Just in $AMD Anush "Speed is the moat"|ROCm๐ŸŽ™๏ธ In the race to define the future of AI, what's the one advantage that truly lasts? It's not proprietary tech, argues Anush Elangovan Elangovan, VP of AI Software at AMD , but the sustainable speed of innovation. He explains why AMD is rejecting the "walled garden" model for its open source ROCm stack, betting that an open community flywheel is the key to victory. Listen to understand how this open strategy is designed to out-innovate closed systems by empowering developers to solve everything from frontier-model challenges to the mundane, everyday problems that define the "last mile" of AI. AMD ROCm Software: Part 1 Transcript [00:00:00] Andrew Zigler: Joining me is Anush Elangovan, VP of AI software at AMD. And when people talk about AI compute, the conversation often stops at hardware specs, but it's more than just physical chips that win the game. It's also the software ecosystems supporting them. [00:00:18] Andrew Zigler: The prevailing strategy in the industry has been to build something like a walled garden. You know, something closed, proprietary locks, developers in. But AMD is betting on an entirely different play, open source acceleration, and with rock, their open source AI software stack. AMD is building not just hardware parity, but an innovation flywheel that's powered by the community with interoperability and the freedom to scale without all of that pesky lockin. [00:00:48] Andrew Zigler: And in this world, speed is your moat and how fast you can innovate while your platform remains open, flexible, and standardize across all of its applications. That's what we're gonna explore [00:01:00] today. So Anush, I'm really excited to have you here. Welcome to Dev Interrupted. [00:01:04] Anush Elangovan: Thanks for having me. Uh, super excited to chat about it. [00:01:07] Andrew Zigler: Amazing. Well, let's go ahead and dive right in with kind of what I laid it out with in the beginning, the idea of the moat and it being about speed. I wanna unpack that a bit because that came from you when you and I first spoke. And I, and I want to know, you know, how do you define speed inside of AMD beyond just things like hardware, benchmarks. [00:01:27] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So when we typically talk about speed, everyone's like, Hey, hardware benchmark specs, right? Like, uh, memory bandwidth or, or flops. And that is one important part of it, uh, AMD does very well. With that, we do have, a, a very good history of executing on that axis. [00:01:47] Anush Elangovan: But when I say speed is the moat, it is about, uh, how we prepare, how we build the muscle to run the race for a long time and run it fast. And it is [00:02:00] not about a single point in time that you've, you've beat some you know, benchmark and, and you declare victory. It's about building the ability to consistently develop and deliver. [00:02:13] Anush Elangovan: Both hardware and software innovation at scale and do it fast, right? Like, you know, we we're increasingly getting to a point where models come out and they're, uh, you know, a year or two ago it was like, Hey, they work on AMD on day zero, which is great, but now they are performing on AMD the day it releases, right? [00:02:32] Anush Elangovan: So, what does it take to Prefetch where the industry is going? Be prepared to intercept. At that point is what you know, I, I refer to as you know, the, the speed factor in, in creating this mode, right? And the mode is just shed all things that hold you back and run as fast as you can. [00:02:53] Anush Elangovan: Uh, because the pace of innovation that is, uh, being seen in, in AI [00:03:00] industries is just. Amazing. Right? And it's like, it's transformational at at how you generate electricity. It's transformational as at how you build data centers. It's transformational at how you deploy compute, networking. It's transformational at what kind of use cases you, you know, uh, use AI for. [00:03:17] Anush Elangovan: Uh, and for that, you need to be prepared to, see what comes tomorrow and be prepared to run the race tomorrow. [00:03:23] Andrew Zigler: Yeah, it's a really great perspective because it highlights that it's not just like a checkpoint that you run through. I like how you called out, like it's not just hitting that benchmark or being the best in class at that moment, in that snapshot, it's about having a. The throughput and about having that dedication to the idea and continuing to deliver on it. [00:03:43] Andrew Zigler: It's not just crossing the threshold, but it's also being the engine. And that's what, that's what protects a business. That is the moat, because the moat is that innovation layer, the faster and more, uh, future forward. That you can work and think, [00:04:00] you know, the better. Uh, we, we talk a lot about like future forward work styles. [00:04:04] Andrew Zigler: Like what are the things I could be doing right now today that are gonna be like, way more useful tomorrow? Let, let's abandon those, workflows that are older and that kind of like, that translates into. An advantage when you work that way. You know, what kind of things have you learned working with, uh, like across all spectrums of people who would use ROCm, right? [00:04:23] Andrew Zigler: You have like the developers, but then you also have the enterprises and you have this large span of adoptees, right? So what is the, what does that look like that you learn? [00:04:32] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, so, so the way I look at it is there are gonna be pockets of different, uh, you know, cadences, right? Like, so people who are deploying in enterprises, for example, right? The validation and how long it takes for them to deploy an LLM that's secure. It's, with guardrails, et cetera, maybe longer. [00:04:52] Anush Elangovan: but you still have to go through the process and you have to be prepared to like, walk that walk to deploy an enterprises. That doesn't mean it's [00:05:00] not fast, that's as fast as you can do for that industry, right? And if you are deploying AI in healthcare, right, it's, it's got its own, uh, cycle. [00:05:07] Anush Elangovan: but in each one of these, you want to see how, like, go down to the essence of what is it that you actually have to do. And, you know, I, I, I like how you framed it. It's like it's, you shed your prior assumptions of how things are done, right. And, and you kind of build up from a, uh, first principles, uh, approach to say, this is how I could use AI to unlock, whatever I'm doing. [00:05:33] Anush Elangovan: And, and, some of it, you know, it's good to really step back and look at. Just question every part of it, right? Like right now you're getting chat GPT and, Gemini competing for like, math, olympiads and, and, uh, college, uh, reasoning, uh, tests. Right? And, and those are like that, that is amazing and increasingly like complex tasks that they're trying to do. [00:05:58] Anush Elangovan: But there may also be like. [00:06:00] More mundane things that AI could, could get applied to. Right? And, and so when we think about shedding old ways, you wanna shed it not just in like the tip of the spear. It's like, you know, I'm gonna see what's the frontier model. It's also, it could be something as simple as. [00:06:18] Anush Elangovan: How do you choose a, a movie, uh, you know, like a recommendation system, right? Or, or, uh, an automated, uh, flight, uh, rebooking system. So the moment, you know, your flight is late, uh, right now it's a notification, right? It's like, oh, you got a text message saying your flight's late. And I got that like three times this week. [00:06:38] Anush Elangovan: But anyway, uh, and, and, and, and, I was just like, okay, so if I were to rethink this. All this MCPs that we have that should be hooked up into an MCP that says, your flight's delayed. Here are your options. If you want, you know, these are the paid options. Yeah. Here are the free options. This will get you back into your you know, Toronto airport [00:07:00] tonight. [00:07:00] Anush Elangovan: Or if you stay, here's a hotel plus this, plus this, plus. It's just like, go ahead is all I should say. Versus now I'm like, okay, can someone, you know, can I call a travel agent? Can I do this? Can I go online and log into And you know, so we gotta fundamentally rethink even those like small, nuances of, things that we do that can be automated out and AI is really, really good at doing something like this, right? Maybe I just explained an AI startup idea right now. Somebody should just start that. [00:07:29] Andrew Zigler: I think you did. Yeah, you definitely did. Someone, one of our listeners is definitely going to lift that off of you. I, I, I, you know, I hate being on the receiving end of those. You feel a little helpless and then you have to like, follow the whole flow. So I know what you mean. Like I, I like how you called out that the build and this like. [00:07:45] Andrew Zigler: Where speed is your moat and the innovation layer is protecting you, is what makes you better than your competitors. How you scale that and you bring that to market. So by understanding the problems that you're solving, uh, throwing away those older assumptions, but also [00:08:00] recognizing that like. We're building every single day, new things and new ways of using stuff that we're still figuring out the implications of. [00:08:08] Andrew Zigler: And so when you have a lot of velocity and you're introducing a lot of new ideas, and maybe you have that workflow now that automatically rebook your flight off of your late flight text message, and uh, I know I would certainly use it, but you know, what kind of philosophies guide the way that y'all think about building this ecosystem to manage that stability while letting folks. [00:08:29] Andrew Zigler: Play with the speed and the assumptions and the airplane re bookings. [00:08:34] Anush Elangovan: so, so I think, you know, we need to peel one layer down, right? and the philosophy is, Hey, we, we just discovered electricity, right? And you know what we're gonna do? We are gonna make motors, uh, or dynamos, right? Like engines. Uh, sure. We don't know if it's gonna be a Ferrari that you're gonna make, or it's a a a a dump truck. [00:08:57] Anush Elangovan: That's good for doing this. But let's [00:09:00] let, which is also required, right? You need a dump truck. You need a garbage truck. And, [00:09:04] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. You need the [00:09:04] Anush Elangovan: course you need, uh, a Ferrari for a midlife crisis, right? So, [00:09:09] Andrew Zigler: precisely. [00:09:10] Anush Elangovan: But, but my, uh, point is what do we build next? And, uh, and this is what I meant by like, okay, let's, let's take those baby steps to build the. [00:09:20] Anush Elangovan: Infrastructure that's required that we know we'll have to use, right? So, so if I just discovered electricity, okay, great. Now one, how do I save this electricity and how do I use it? So there's battery technology, so you need to do something like that, right? Like so. But then you also want to make it into an actionable thing. [00:09:37] Anush Elangovan: You want to make it for like automobiles, or you wanna use it for, you know, powering, uh, entire cities. So it is that transformational. So, uh, AI is that transformational. So, if you distill down, it'll, it'll come down to how do we think about, what we can do with this this fundamental technology that, We may not be aware of what it [00:10:00] is gonna unlock next, but at least you know the next step is clear, right? It's like a dense fog, you know, it's gonna be like, it, it's the right path. You see the light, but it's kind of like out there and, and the steps you're taking are concrete and you're like, okay, this is good. [00:10:16] Anush Elangovan: I, this is better than where I was or where we were. So we are moving forward. So you can build with the. Intuition from what you see in the short term and a tactical view, but towards what you think the future is gonna be. [00:10:28] Andrew Zigler: Right. You almost like we're all in this like fog of war, right? And like you said, you're reaching out and you're trying to step through it. You could think of it too, as like you're in the dark and your hands are up in front of you and you know that. You're, you're not gonna run your face into a wall because your hands are out in front of you, but you're not gonna maybe do much better than that. [00:10:45] Andrew Zigler: So that's kind of like, I think the eco, the, the industry, the world that we find ourselves in, uh, and we all have to, then this becomes the power of an ecosystem, of a group of people working together to create that layer of, [00:11:00] uh, of establishing the [00:11:01] Anush Elangovan: exactly. And I, I, I just, instead of, you know, saying fog of war I describe it as like, you're in this. Beautiful valley with like a morning, uh, fog that's in. You can smell the flowers. You, you hear the birds. You are like, okay, it's, we are in like, uh, utopian paradise and yes, I just need to like, continue the walk, right? [00:11:24] Anush Elangovan: and then move forward with that, conviction that you're in the right spot. [00:11:27] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. So let's talk about that ecosystem world. This nice, I love how you describe it, this grassy side of a hill in the morning that's covered in some mist and maybe we can't see 30 feet in one direction, but it sure is a beautiful hill and it smells nice. And so we're all here. And why is, in that world, why is. [00:11:44] Andrew Zigler: You know, open source, their strategic advantage that y'all are going for in the AI hardware market. And, and then how does like ROCm turn that into wins for people within that ecosystem? [00:11:56] Anush Elangovan: you know, the, the way we look at it is this, is kind of like how I view [00:12:00] AI and the ecosystem, right? But, but it is for everyone to enjoy. Uh, and so we do want to make sure that. You know, it is, uh, beneficial for everyone. [00:12:09] Anush Elangovan: The ecosystem can come in and, and innovate. It's an open innovation engine. and uh, it is very different from, you know, having a walled garden with, Hey, only I know how to do this and I'm gonna do it and throw it over the fence and you can use it or keep walking, right? So we'd like to be good citizens that way, but also. [00:12:30] Anush Elangovan: Uh, it is self-fulfilling in a way, right? Like it, the, the pace at which we innovate with open source is unmatched. Like, you know, our serving engines are like VLLM and, and sg l. Those things, uh, those frameworks are like super, super aggressive in terms of how fast they come out with features and how fast they can you know, get performant models out. [00:12:52] Anush Elangovan: And that compared with what, uh, you'd get from, you know, the likes of like T-R-T-L-L-M or something is always lagging, right? Because you [00:13:00] just can't keep up with you know, 200 commits a week just on one particular model to get that model really performant [00:13:06] Andrew Zigler: And, and, and in that world where, you know, everyone can enjoy the winds of this, what kind of customer stories or innovation stories have really stood out to you and excite you about building and creating this place for developers? [00:13:19] Anush Elangovan: Yeah. So I think the parts that are super exciting for me are when when we get to see a customer that is first skeptical. Then they start a little like, okay, fine, we'll give you a chance. Uh, we do a simple, uh, POC and then they're like, huh, this seems to work. Yeah, we told you it works. [00:13:42] Anush Elangovan: You don't have to change one line of code. Really? Yes, no need to change one line of code. Okay, let's try a production workload. So then they try it. Oh, you're more performant than the competition. Yes. We're more performant than, than the competition. So how much does it cost? And we're like, oh, it's your TCO is better with, uh, [00:14:00] AMD. [00:14:00] Anush Elangovan: So again, they're like, wow, okay, good. So now how do we deploy at scale? And then we go deploy it at scale. And when they give a thumbs up on that and they say, this is good, right? That's when you know, you, you see it go full circle from like, oh, we, we've never heard about AMD to like actually deploy to tens of thousands of GPUs In the order of a few months, right? It, it, it really is fascinating to see and very exciting and invigorating to [00:14:28] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. At like a great exposure to a lot of interesting problems. And, and then people using the infrastructure, the, the technology available to solve those problems. Really specific problems by the way, that's often why they're bringing their data and AI to it, uh, is because it is really specific and important for them. [00:14:45] Andrew Zigler: And there's a, a lot I think that other engineering orgs can learn and even emulate from AMD's success and, and having this open source ecosystem and it causing this acceleration within. You [00:15:00] know, uh, customers and enterprises that use and adopt the tools and, and, and that creates an advantage. And that goes back to why we're talking and like the real thesis of our conversation today. [00:15:10] Andrew Zigler: So how do you think engineering leaders that are listening to this and obviously tapping into this great success AMD has from an open source flywheel, how do you think other, other folks building in the same space can foster that open, first, that open source oriented culture in order to, you know, accelerate their innovation goals? [00:15:29] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So the startup that um, was acquired by AMD we, we built, I mean, we started off doing iot stuff and you know, smart ring and all that, right? But in the, the end of like, uh, and not the end, the last six years of the company was building ML compilers. [00:15:47] Anush Elangovan: And ml, ML compilers are like super, uh, complicated, sophisticated, advanced algorithms, dah, dah, dah. but it was all open source, right? So our VCs were like, wait, what do you mean your core [00:16:00] IP is open source? And um, the speed is the moat applied even then, right? It was just like, yes, if you have an idea that. [00:16:08] Anush Elangovan: Because someone saw this idea that you are, they're gonna be able to catch up, then you probably have the wrong idea anyway. But if they are, you know, you execute and they're gonna catch up, that you should assume they're gonna catch up. Right? So you gotta move forward. So keeping it open source is super important. [00:16:25] Anush Elangovan: But also to your question on like, you know, the learnings from an AMD standpoint, right? If there are, hard problems, I'd say dig in and work through it, right? Like there's no way but through it, right? That should be the simple mentality. And more, uh, frequently than not. you'll see that you'll just make it through in a, in, in good form. [00:16:52] Anush Elangovan: But if you doubt it and you're like, oh, I don't know if I should commit, if I'm, I, you know, what should just commit to do the right thing [00:17:00] every step, right? Every step, and just keep taking one step in front of the other. And in no time you'll see that you'll be running. Right. And, and yes, the first few steps will be like, yeah, everyone's complaining about your software quality. [00:17:15] Anush Elangovan: Everyone's complaining about this and that, and it doesn't work. And, and a few steps in, you know, you get, you get the hang of all the complaints that are coming in. You get the feedback loop. You're like, okay, what, what are you prioritizing again? One step in front of the other, right? You just keep knocking that out and then you get to a point where you're, it just becomes second nature, right? To do the, to do the right thing. And, and then yes, if someone gives you two options, you'll be like, fine. This is, uh, you know, there's always the resource trade off. There's always a human capital trade off, but what's the right thing to do? of course, I, I'm pragmatic about what we choose, but, but if the right thing for your long-term success is dig in, go first, principles, make it [00:18:00] happen. [00:18:00] Anush Elangovan: Well. Then just go for that. There's, there is no shortcut to [00:18:04] Andrew Zigler: acknowledging, you know, how it aligns with your mission, your core company goals, and what you're looking to achieve. And, and I, I love how you rightfully called out that in the open source world and you know, you have your technology that you've built, what you think is your moat upon, right? [00:18:22] Andrew Zigler: It's your code and, and to open source that, or to just make it where anyone could peer in is, you know. Scary in one regard, but two, it just kind of feels like you're handing away your throne room in some kind of sense, a very direct feeling sense. But the ultimately, you were really right to call out, and this is something I think about all the time, that the real power there is still the speed This the speed. [00:18:42] Andrew Zigler: That was the moat at the beginning of our conversation. It's the speed in combination with your. Very specific domain understanding of what you're building and what you're creating, and your new role as the steward of that world and how people plug into it, which [00:19:00] has frankly, a lot more influence and power than lording over a closed. [00:19:04] Andrew Zigler: You know, repository or an ecosystem, and like you said, like throwing things over the wall. Sure. There, there might be people always on the other side of that wall, but you're not gonna have a great connection with them. You're not gonna be able to really clearly understand them. I, I like your metaphor of the side of the field of the mountain a lot more. [00:19:23] Andrew Zigler: But, but in the, in this world, you know, where. That speed is, is the power and, and open source is just one way that you can harness that speed to get really far ahead and to innovate. , There's other parts of this equation that you can be experimenting with too, and I'd love to pick your brain about them as a software leader and, and, and one of them is about looking forward and kind of understanding that future that we're all building towards and beyond today's models and hardware. [00:19:48] Andrew Zigler: You know, what do you see as the next major bottleneck or opportunity in the AI compute space? As, as you know, enterprises and folks start to get a little more mature about what's available to [00:20:00] them. [00:20:00] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, I think, the bottleneck and opportunity is, uh, what I'd call, call walking the last mile of ai. Right. Uh, and like I I, I gave you an example, uh, previously, but, but it's similar to that. It's like there are cases where Humans have so many, uh, things to do in your day. You know, like the, if we sit down and actually had a customer focus like, okay, these customers lives, I'm gonna save four hours of this customer's life. And if you actually sit down and look at all of that, it'll be. Easily automatable, easily you know, uh, applicable, uh, for ai, right? [00:20:39] Anush Elangovan: Like, but then making it happen is gonna take a little bit, right? It's like maybe it's, uh, paying your utility bill, right? Or something like that, right? Or, or, your healthcare explanation of benefits. Uh, like, I'm sure you get an explanation of benefits, and I'm like, I, I don't even know what that thing is. [00:20:55] Anush Elangovan: It's just like EOB and like. [00:20:57] Andrew Zigler: it's a big, a big old PDF. Yeah, [00:21:00] exactly. [00:21:01] Anush Elangovan: Like, like, I'm like great straight to the, uh, shredder, right? And but that could be, you know, automated with the ai, right? It, it, it'd be like, Hey, the summary of this thing is you went and visited this day. Everything is okay. Everything is paid for, so don't worry, it's not a bill. [00:21:17] Anush Elangovan: That again, the same, uh, thing, but the sense of what that information overload is could be. Digested by ai, uh, accumulated over time and retrieved when you need it. Like, I don't, I actually don't even need to know this EOB right now, unless of course, whenever I need to know it, that maybe, you know, like for some benefits I need to figure out what do, what did I do over the past year and how do I apply it? Source:

Mike

14,195 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 8 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

In a newly released technical update, SpaceX's leadership team, which includes communications manager Dan Huot, Director of Satellite Engineering Ian Dahl, and CEO Elon Musk, detailed a highly ambitious infrastructure roadmap to design, manufacture, and operate specialized artificial intelligence computing satellites at scale. Positioned as a major strategic pillar to dramatically elevate civilizational energy and processing capacity on the Kardashev scale, this strategy moves past traditional communications architectures into massive orbital server arrays. Here is the complete breakdown of the core technologies and timelines driving this space-based intelligence revolution: ๐Ÿ›ฐ๏ธ AI1 satellite power and compute capacity Ian Dahl and Elon Musk introduced the baseline performance targets for the first-generation AI1 satellite, explaining how its custom hardware is engineered to operate like an orbital data center server rack. Ian Dahl noted that their direct operational experience with xAI guided them to target a 150-kilowatt peak power capacity. To manage active machine learning workloads continuously, Elon Musk explained that the satellite is optimized to maintain a sustained average compute power envelope of 120 kilowatts, which directly mirrors the real-world performance of a terrestrial NVIDIA server rack. The official presentation slides outline several key operational metrics for this payload configuration: โšก The custom architecture delivers a 150 kW peak compute payload. ๐Ÿ”‹ The system maintains a 120 kW sustained average compute payload under active workloads. โš–๏ธ The hardware achieves a highly optimized power-to-weight density of 70 kW per ton. ๐Ÿ”„ The layout features a completely interchangeable compute provider design. "We thought that the right place to start is around the 150 kilowatt peak power level. But as we look at the workloads with our experience with xAI, we see that we can support about 120 kilowatts of average compute. The 150 kilowatt peak power level roughly matches what, say, an NVIDIA GV300 rack would do. A more reasonable operating envelope would be around 120 kilowatts average power, but it can peak up to 150. So it is basically thinking about it as a rack of compute in space." --- ๐Ÿ“ AI1 satellite dimensions and thermal efficiency specs Elon Musk detailed the physical layout of the AI1 satellite, highlighting the massive dimensions required to accommodate its immense power and cooling hardware. He shared specific design criteria, explaining that the engineering relies on a custom 150 kW solar array paired with a high-capacity deployable liquid radiator thermal management system. The technical specifications of this vehicle layout include: ๐Ÿ“ The structural frame features a massive 70-meter wingspan. โ†•๏ธ The vehicle spans a total deployed height of 20 meters. โ˜€๏ธ The onboard solar array delivers an efficiency of 250 W/mยฒ using technology manufactured in Bastrop, Texas. ๐ŸŒก๏ธ The thermal system utilizes a 110 mยฒ deployable liquid radiator to cleanly dump waste heat. ๐Ÿ”„ The cooling architecture incorporates redundant pumping loops for mission safety. ๐Ÿ›ก๏ธ The exterior contains integrated micrometeoroid shielding to protect the fluid lines. ๐Ÿงญ The double-sided radiators achieve a dissipation rate of 1400 watts per square meter while remaining oriented knife-edge to the sun. "The assumptions here are 250 watts per square meter for the solar array and about 1400 watts per square meter for the radiators. The radiators are double-sided, radiating on both sides, and they're oriented knife-edge to the sun. They have about a 70-meter wingspan, so these are fairly large." --- ๐Ÿงฉ Simplified design architecture built on Starlink V3 tech Elon Musk explained that despite the satellite's imposing size, its internal architecture is fundamentally much simpler than a standard Starlink satellite. Because it lacks heavy phased array and parabolic communications antennas, the entire vehicle layout is completely streamlined around a few essential structural modules: ๐ŸŽ›๏ธ The hardware framework is arranged around a centralized compute module. โ˜€๏ธ Large deployable solar arrays extend outward to capture orbital energy. ๐ŸŒก๏ธ A deployable liquid-radiator thermal management system controls active operational temperatures. ๐Ÿ”„ The engineering team heavily leverages the component evolution and manufacturing experience gained from developing the Starlink V3 vehicle platform. "The AI satellite is actually much simpler than a Starlink satellite. A Starlink satellite has gigantic phased array antennas, parabolic antennas, and a lot of laser links, making it much more complicated. An AI satellite is essentially a lot of solar cells, a radiator, and you still need some laser links, but you don't have all of the super complex antennas that you have on a Starlink satellite. A lot of this is technology we've already made for the Starlink V3 satellites." --- ๐Ÿ”Œ Interchangeable compute reference designs and high connectivity Elon Musk outlined a modular hardware approach for the satellite's payload, allowing it to house a variety of industry-standard processing units depending on client requirements. This interchangeable compute rack is supported by a high-bandwidth connectivity loop that links separate orbital units together or transmits data directly back to Earth. The core network parameters include: ๐Ÿง  Reference designs are fully established to seamlessly accommodate NVIDIA Reuben chips. ๐Ÿ’พ The system architecture is built to support alternative setups using NVIDIA GB300 chips. ๐Ÿ’ป Custom hardware layouts are explicitly designed to integrate Google TPUs. ๐ŸŒ The onboard communications setup delivers roughly 1 terabit of laser link connectivity. โฑ๏ธ The network closes the communication loop directly with the main Starlink constellation at an ultra-low latency of only 3 milliseconds. "Our current reference design is for NVIDIA Reuben chips, or it could be either GB300 or Reuben chips. We'll also have a reference design for TPUs. Essentially, you can put up any existing chips into orbit. There would also be probably something on the order of a terabit of laser link connectivity from the satellite. Then you can connect these racks of compute to each other by the laser links or directly to the Starlink constellations. Light travels 300 kilometers per millisecond, so that's about three milliseconds away." --- ๐Ÿญ The "gigasat" AI satellite and solar production hub in Bastrop, Texas Dan Huot highlighted that the primary production hub for this entire hardware ecosystem is anchored at their sprawling complex in Bastrop, Texas, officially designated as the Gigasat factory. Elon Musk verified that construction is already actively underway on the solar manufacturing facility to feed the project's supply line, with plans moving forward to construct the adjacent AI satellite assembly lines. The physical footprint and timeline of this manufacturing hub are defined by the following benchmarks: ๐Ÿ—บ๏ธ The company has over 1,000 acres of land currently owned or under contract for the site. ๐Ÿข The manufacturing complex boasts a massive structural building potential exceeding 11 million square feet. โš™๏ธ The facility will vertically integrate production to manufacture solar ingots, wafers, solar cells, and completed AI satellites. ๐Ÿ“… Both the solar and AI satellite production lines are targeted to be operational at a viable volume by the end of next year. "We're going to be building a lot of satellites and we're going to be building them here in Bastrop. We already have the solar manufacturing facility under construction, and then we will be building out the AI sat production building soon. We expect to have the AI sat production, the solar production, and all of that operating at some reasonable volume by the end of next year." --- ๐Ÿข The 100-million-square-foot "terafab" chip factory Elon Musk revealed a massive, long-term scaling strategy to build an immense chip manufacturing facility dubbed the "terafab" to completely bypass global semiconductor volume constraints. This manufacturing infrastructure is designed to transition the company into next-generation industrial scaling by producing highly specialized computing components at an unprecedented volume. The scale of this infrastructure project is defined by several extraordinary engineering and production benchmarks: ๐Ÿญ The colossal factory is projected to span approximately 100 million square feet, making it ten times larger than the current Tesla Gigafactory Texas. โšก The facility is structurally engineered to achieve a massive manufacturing output of 1 terawatt per year once fully operational. ๐Ÿ“ฆ This unprecedented physical footprint provides the capacity required to manufacture 1 billion full-reticle equivalent chips annually. ๐Ÿ”Œ Each individual chip manufactured by the facility is designed to run at a power capacity of 1 kilowatt. ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The total scaled output of the facility represents an energy footprint that is exactly double the current annual electricity consumption of the entire United States. "In order to get to the next order of magnitude, you need a gigantic chip factory. To give you a sense of scale here, we expect that the terafab is going to be around 100 million square feet, which is 10 times the size of the Tesla Gigafactory Texas. From a logic die standpoint, that's like having a billion chips per year with a kilowatt per reticle, scaling to a terawatt per year. That is twice the current electricity consumption of the United States." --- ๐Ÿ“ถ Next-generation high-volume Starlink terminals Dan Huot and Elon Musk introduced their next-generation Starlink user terminals, which have been redesigned specifically to achieve massive manufacturing throughput. Elon Musk pointed out that these newer models will be produced in vastly higher volumes than current hardware designs to fulfill their long-term global deployment targets: ๐Ÿ“ˆ The upgraded user hardware is manufactured at a much higher volume capacity than existing units. ๐ŸŒ The company's ultimate target is to successfully deploy a few hundred million of these next-generation terminals worldwide. "In fact, these are the new Starlink terminals, which we made in much higher volume than the current terminals. Ultimately, we think there's probably going to be a few hundred million Starlink terminals out there." --- ๐Ÿ“ˆ Aspirational timeline for orbital AI compute scaling Elon Musk laid out an ambitious, multi-year execution timeline detailing how the company plans to progressively scale space-based processing power. The roadmap targets an initial run-rate by the end of next year and sets an aggressive pace to increase total operational capacity sequentially through a structured, multi-phase timeline: 1๏ธโƒฃ The initial target aims to hit an annualized run-rate of 1 gigawatt of space AI compute by the end of next year. 2๏ธโƒฃ The capacity scales to an annualized rate of 10 gigawatts within the next two and a half years. 3๏ธโƒฃ The operational envelope expands to reach 100 gigawatts in three and a half years. 4๏ธโƒฃ The long-term deployment plan scales directly to a full terawatt capacity per year using the output of the terafab. "The goal is to get to roughly an annualized rate of a gigawatt per year by the end of next year in terms of space AI compute. Then aspirationally, we want to scale that by an order of magnitude per year. In two and a half years, hitting an annualized rate of 10 gigawatts a year in space, and in three and a half years, maybe a hundred gigawatts, going beyond that with the terafab to scale to a terawatt per year." --- ๐ŸŒ• Ultimate scaling via lunar production and mass drivers Elon Musk explained that scaling three orders of magnitude past a single terawatt forces a transition completely off-planet to avoid the logistical penalty of Earth's deep gravity well. The vision relies on establishing manufacturing infrastructure directly on the moon to leverage localized resource loops and zero-atmosphere physics: ๐ŸŒ™ The company plans to establish localized raw production lines on the moon to fabricate solar panels, photovoltaics, and radiators from lunar materials. โšก Manufacturing components locally avoids the massive fuel and mass penalties of transporting heavy structural materials from Earth. ๐Ÿงฒ Because the moon has no atmosphere and only one-sixth of Earth's gravity, the facility will utilize an electromagnetic mass driver to launch completed satellites. ๐Ÿš€ Operating essentially as a linear electric motor rail gun, this mechanism will shoot fully assembled AI satellites straight into deep space without relying on chemical rockets. "The only way that we can really see that you can achieve that is on the moon with a mass driver, essentially where you do local production of photovoltaics, solar panels, and radiators on the moon. Because the moon has no atmosphere and only one-sixth Earth's gravity, you can accelerate the AI satellites into deep space without a rocket. You can basically shoot them into space using an electromagnetic gun, like a rail gun typeโ€”it's basically a linear electric motor."

Ming

22,203 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 2 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰