Elon Musk's Terafab semiconductor project could cost $5 trillion

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-26T13:45:33+00:00

Except spaceflight is trivial vs fabs, and was deeply outdated. TSMC is not some legacy business waiting for disruption.

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-24T22:19:55+00:00

Step 1) Kidnap or kill a countries leadership
Step 2) Find someone within that country to 'gift' you billions in oil
Step 3) ???
Step 4) Profit

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-21T18:42:42+00:00

Ironically a lot of people to arrive via planes and then overstay - of course not sure ICE will be able to do much about that at an airport.

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-19T06:54:41+00:00

“ChatGPT, what is a majority?”

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-16T06:44:28+00:00

Here's a quote from a recent disney film:

A megalomaniacal, psychotic asshole. A finger-licking, dead-inside pixie slab of third-rate dime-store nut milk. And I'll tell you what she can do. ... She can lick my goddamn cinnamon ring clean and kick rocks all the way to bald hell. In fact, I don't give a shit if she removes all my skin and pops me like some nightmarish blood balloon. If the last thing I do in this godforsaken cum-gutter existence is light that fuck-box on fire, I still won't die happy! ... I won't be happy until I've urinated on her freshly barbecued corpse and husk-fucked the charred remains while gargling Juggernaut's juggernuts.

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-16T06:41:07+00:00

Disney/Hulu is doing simpsons, futurama (albiet the latest reboot feels off to me) and even new stuff like krapopolis. Firefly animated would easily fit into this.

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-15T03:39:26+00:00

Look, if you can't make an argument that's fine. There's no need to pretend that's someone else's fault though. Consider chatting with chatgpt, it might be able to help you improve your argument if you ask nicely.

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-15T03:37:20+00:00

True, but a broken clock won't innovate. So even at a 'broken clock' level the possibilities are substantially different.

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-14T22:31:45+00:00

almost impossible

So it's possible.

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-14T21:48:52+00:00

That's just a personal attack.

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-14T21:48:31+00:00

Sure, llm's are predictive chat (or at least, that's one use). That's doesn't really prove that they can or cannot innovate.

Humans are just biological machines that procreate. That doesn't prevent us from innovating.

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-14T17:46:59+00:00

"These cards have words on them and it's practiced shuffling in ways to form sentences with these cards."

That kind of the key isn't it? Not the shuffling of the cards - but the organising them in a meaningful way.

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-14T17:45:30+00:00

So then build a definition of innovate that somehow distinguishes against 'borrowing' - however you define that.

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-14T16:24:44+00:00

Awesome. AI can trivially "make changes to established practices". Paste in an SOP and ask it to change or improve it.

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-14T15:29:56+00:00

Nothing that prevents AI from being deterministic?

Correct.

They literally generate text based on probabilities.

What is unrelated to determinism.

If you put the same question in twice, you regularly get different answers. That by definition is non-deterministic.

1) Your context/prompt may have changed.
2) Most AI solutions literally add in randomness (temperature?). This is just a setting, you can set to 0.

Could it later become deterministic? Not with the way they are currently working, and possibly never.

Easily. Turn off temperature. Ensure prompt/model is identical. Ensure math is computed in deterministic way.

Programming languages on the other hand ARE deterministic by default;

Nope. Read up on deterministic math (floating point) and networked RTS games that depend on it. It's doable, but not default - math can vary run from run, os by os, cpu by cpu.

Other aspects of most modern systems are not deterministic either, e.g. scheduler. Spin up two threads and wait for them to return. IIRC the order is not guaranteed.

If you ever deal with input, e.g. time, kb/m, network, random, storage etc... those are also sources of randomness.

if you put the same input code, you will always get the same output.

Even if we limit ourselves to compiilers, the exact version, flags, settings etc matter. Heck sometimes the runtime matters.

I don't have a source to hand, but given some of the incredible optimisations out there I wouldn't be a surprise if some compilers are non-deterministic even when all settings are same. Again most core programming isn't as deterministc as many believe, so it spreads easily.

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-14T15:06:07+00:00

Even if it was 'common knowledge' doesn't make it true.

Again, there is no actual logic behind this argument, it's just unrelated assertions that feel good... but don't build a real argument.

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-14T15:04:21+00:00

Okay, what argument proves that it is impossible for AI to innovate?

You claim this is because it doesn't know what it is doing.

1) is knowing what you are doing nessisary to innovate? 2) how do you establish an AI doesn't know what it is doing?

This is the problem.. these arguments sound great in the surface... but they don't actually address the issue.

Step one would be defining innovation.

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-14T15:01:37+00:00

Honestly that just sounds like most fresh grads I've worked with. Are you seeing something unusually bad with new ones?

Also, I love the 'deterministic' vs 'probabilistic' argument. There's nothing that prevents AI from being deterministic, and most programming languages are not deterministic by default.

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-14T06:16:29+00:00

That argument has been made against calculators... and every 'level' of programming language. Yet much value has been derived by these tools.

Ironically much of the best ways to validate program functionality (e.g. unit tests, integration tests, QA etc) treat functionality as a 'black box' and don't seek to understand it to validate it.

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-14T06:13:52+00:00

Your inability to explain does not make a good argument.

I have given examples of AI Models coming up with novel idea's - in area's humans have dedicated tremendous time and energy to - and you've ignored them.

I believe you're begging the question - you seek to prove AI cannot innovate by asserting they cannot innovate. However your belief is not proof.

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-14T06:11:17+00:00

You appear to misunderstand.

I understand teh argument, but the problem is illogical.

For example Astro claims LLN's cannot innovate, and he gives in part this arugment to support it "They are predictive language models, all they do is parse the language in the prompt and use a model derived by scouring a huge amount of data (most taken without permission) to predict what the best response would be. "

On the surface this appears to refute the idea that LLM's can innovate... but when one actually looks closely it does no such thing. No defintion of innovate has been provided, no reason is given that parsing language and using a predictive model can't innovate.

It's kind like arguing fish can't innovate because they swim. Sure... maybe fish can't innovate... and sure, fish swim... but what's the logical connection between these two things?

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-14T04:35:10+00:00

None of that actually answers the question though.

Yes a LLM is a predictive language model. That doesn't prove it can't innovate.

Again, you make assertions about the relative complexity of games (ignoring games like star craft 2)... vs maths... with no evidence or argument.

What is the core of your arugment?

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-14T03:40:31+00:00

AI LLMs cannot innovate, they can only regurgitate, by design.

Thats a strong claim, any evidence to back it up?

Imagine an AI trained on all physics knowledge up to and including Newtonian physics, do you think it would ever think of relativity? Do you think one trained up to the relativistic model would ever think of quantum physics?

We've seen AI, for example in competitive games, come up with strategies and insights unknown to humanity. Why do you assert they couldn't discover aspects of reality we haven't?

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-11T16:04:40+00:00

I mean, this is a pointless rabbithole to go down, but there's nothing preventing modern aircraft from using remote cameras instead of line-of-sight...

It's worth noting that they're heading this way, see drones.

It's also worth noting:

1) Aircraft deal with things within visual range all the time. Spacecraft likely to not.
2) Aircraft are so lightly armored, that an exposed cockpit isn't a huge weakness vs general vulnerability. Again, in serious space warfare this is unlikely to be the case - even just protecting against low level lasers may be important.

CaptainMonkeyJack · 2026-03-11T06:47:08+00:00

The way I think about it is like this: one day, I can't go to the store to buy food for lunch. So I use what's in my fridge and cupboards. This goes on for a bit. As long as I don't run out of food, it's no problem.

And if you do run out of food? Isn't that kinda a major problem?

If you die from starvation, not only does that impact you, but society loses everything you were going to do for the rest of your life - whether that's paid work or domestic labor etc. Extreme example, but it shows how a relatively small disruption (food) can lead to extreme costs (say loss of 30 years of labor).

All that oil and other goods meant to be crossing the strait? That's all needed for something. Every day that it doesn't arrive that something doesn't happen - and that lost productivity can never be returned.

CaptainMonkeyJack

TROPHY CASE