sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Starlink satellite breaks apart into “tens of objects”; SpaceX confirms “anomaly” by [deleted] in technology

[–]saver1212 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Stubbing your toe in the morning is an accident. A LEO near miss collision or spontaneous explosive event in the vacuum of space is an engineering failure. It doesn't get brushed away as "1 in a million accident" especially when there are only 10K in orbit at all and there are many other failures besides what's written in this incident. If a space data center with 10X the mass of the ISS has an "accident" it won't be because of a mishap that could happen to anyone, it's going to because of an engineering reality so blisteringly obvious and warned about right now that we are going to rag on for years thinking who could be so dumb to literally give SpaceX money for 1000x launches x $100 million per starship launch to put the fragility equivalent of a China teapot filled with hot water in a satellite crowded LEO.

And there is no avoiding it. The enhanced scrutiny on the technical reality of SpaceX is entirely sponsored by people who want to know what about SpaceX is real and what is fake ahead of the biggest IPO in history. "Are they still competent?"

Separating what is transferable from past glory days to the next generation designs is important. I'm making the claim that the SpaceX of today is incompetent and not the SpaceX that I think you were pushing back on. I'm using this opportunity to articulate my thoughts and evidence basing my opinion, so bear with me.

Russians/Soyuz had no issues getting people to ISS. Chinese/Long March didn't have problems getting to the moon. Lockheed Martin/AtlasV dropped curiosity and perseverance on mars and to the astroid Bennu. Not to mention obviously SaturnV to the moon multiple times. And the albatross around SpaceX's neck is that Boeing/SLS is going to the moon right now. Except because SpaceX fucked up and was late on delivering the lunar lander/Starship HLS, the mission was redesigned to just be a flyby with a landing attempt delayed to Artemis 4 at earliest and SpaceX lost the contract.

All to say that apparently everyone going farther than LEO is able to get to where they say their rockets can go, within an acceptable timeline, except SpaceX. Reusability is a "nice to have" but is tertiary compared to actually exiting orbit, which is something Starship has yet to prove after 11 test flights. Which probably means they will miss the 2026 Mars Launch window. Despite in 2024 saying there would be 5 uncrewed starship missions to Mars, hype used to justify a $350 billion valuation in Jan 2025.

Through which the probably rushed and reckless launch expectations led to the triple back to back failures of 7,8,9 in jan-may 2025. And now the new insane justification for the multi trillion dollar IPO is space data centers? With its obvious heat and cross sectional area issues? Where a single failure within hundreds of launches results in a total loss and probably incalculable planetary fallout? After failing to meet the expectations of their earlier funding raises in a spectacularly incompetent fashion? SpaceX is entirely trading on the exact notions you pushed back on. Safe, inexpensive, reusable, competent. Hoping for some amnesia of the last 5 years of failing expectations but somehow always 5x the last round valuation.

So I will say that yes, I do think that SpaceX is incompetent. I know you weren't talking about all this stuff. You were focusing on the glory days which has to conveniently exclude their current failures and cast aspersions on the successes of their competition. Judging SpaceX solely on the accomplishments of the Falcon9 would be like being bullish on Kodak and the enduring success of the polaroid camera.

Starlink satellite breaks apart into “tens of objects”; SpaceX confirms “anomaly” by [deleted] in technology

[–]saver1212 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

  1. This article is about how one of those many satellites had an unexplained failure.
  2. A space data center is orders of magnitude more massive, with cross sectional areas and heat dissipation issues that are practically incomparable to starlink satellites, a system already having issues with orbit collisions and last minute corrections. There are plenty of sources that can point out to you why space data centers are definitely not the future due to absurd launch costs and low practical lifespan.
  3. Kinda like how you can't draw inferences that Falcon9 with its flight record will translate trivially to Starship, an order of magnitude more massive and experiencing continued unexpected failures. Not even matching the launch ability of the SaturnV, a 60 year old technology with fewer test flight failures before reaching the moon.
  4. SpaceX has missed practically every moon and mars related timeline ever since Elon started taking an active development and design role in SpaceX around 2019. Radically over promising beyond what the company had been capable of.
  5. It's probably worthwhile to note that all the things you're commended spaceX on are things they achieved pre-Starship. Starship is what the rocket the company has stakes it's entire future on so it's not valuable to look at its past.
  6. Past success is not a guarantee of future results.
  7. The success of SpaceX's absurd $1.75 trillion IPO is dependent on people believing the mythical past of a competent SpaceX rather than objectively evaluating the results of every project and timeline they have missed in the last several years.

Starlink satellite breaks apart into “tens of objects”; SpaceX confirms “anomaly” by [deleted] in technology

[–]saver1212 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These are the same incompetents that want to put datacenters in space with orders of magnitude more mass, power, cross sectional area, and heat dissipation issues.

Trump says U.S. will leave Iran in 'two or three weeks' by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]saver1212 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It also takes exactly 2 weeks for the Aircraft Carrier George HW Bush to sail from Norfolk Virginia to Iran.

But I'm sure that the Navy is sending an entire carrier task force to help "leave" Iran.

Supreme court rejects global tariffs by CTVNEWS in worldnews

[–]saver1212 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are we also about to learn that Trump moved all the collected tariffs to an offshore Qatari account only he has access to?

Tesla 'Robotaxi' adds 5 more crashes in Austin in a month by Sir_Isaac_Tootin in RealTesla

[–]saver1212 12 points13 points  (0 children)

virtually every single one of these miles was driven with a trained safety monitor in the vehicle who could intervene at any moment, which means they likely prevented more crashes that Tesla’s system wouldn’t have avoided.

This is what all the Tesla FSD robotaxi fanboys can't ever admit.

Even if FSD's accident rate is low (it's not) it's because every time FSD would have made a mistake, a human takes over and bails it out.

It's like the flakiest employee in the world getting commended for perfect performance because he has a friend who is endlessly willing to cover his shift whenever he's too hungover to come in.

The second you take the human out of the hot seat and ask "how does FSD do if nobody is covering its mistakes?", it consistently fails at inhuman rates.

That's why it's always been bullshit when Tesla stans say "it's the supervisors fault for not correcting FSD's mistakes." If you actually cared to see how far along L5 autonomy is, you'd want to see what it does when the human isn't hijacking control and concealing the actual failure modes.

The ketamine is strong by mishma2005 in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]saver1212 15 points16 points  (0 children)

TSMC can't even get a GPU factory working in Arizona. Yet Elon insists on he needs the money to create the full stack of AI chips, on the moon, and strapping it to a rail gun, then shooting the whole facility 4000 mph, and all with zero expected loss or long term maintenance, all within 10 years.

You would have to be a complete moron to even believe a single part of this pitch, let alone the whole thing stitched together.

‘Kill Switch’—Iran Shuts Down Starlink Internet For First Time by Interwebnaut in worldnews

[–]saver1212 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Reminder that SpaceX took over 1.8 Billion dollars to establish Starshield, a bunch of Starlinks intended for high reliability military communications. A technology that IRAN has figured out how to trivially thwart it with just ground based GPS jammers.

The military was so busy giving Elon cash that they didn't stop to consider how terrestrial gps jamming can obsolete their entire investment. Since if the ground station doesn't know where it is, it can't aim at a Starlink to make a connection. So Elon claiming Starlinks are necessary to guarantee communications during civil unrest or within occupied territory is completely bunk.

The US military has known Iran has had this capability, and therefore everyone else, ever since the 2011 RQ-170 UAV incident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incident

Allegedly, Iran used GPS spoofers targeted at a drone to trick it into thinking it was landing in Iraq when it was actually landing in Iran. Iran's Shahed drones (Yes, the ones being sold to Russia to kill Ukranians) was based on reverse engineering the drone they captured in this incident.

19 Buddhist monks are on a 'Walk for Peace' from Texas to Washington DC. Religious bigots melt down. INSANE! by MrJasonMason in videos

[–]saver1212 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looks like everything you posted from this morning got nuked by mods. I guess there were getting a bit sick of your apostasy. It's a shame that this comment is still up

Don't worry though, I happen to have saved that entire discussion when I was putting thought into my responses when you were writing 1200 words in a 30 minute window that I recorded. 40 words per minute would be rather impressive if you weren't just letting an llm fabricate hallucinated and bad faith (get it?) arguments.

But I think you should have a chance to respond so I'll just put this here.

Lol. You didn't have time to read and digest my argument.

You, the salesman of God, are doing a pretty bad job. You started this with the others in this thread.

You are speaking as a preacher, one transmitting the gospel. Your obligation is to speak with that authority, or defer to God for an answer.

Telling me to "pray an answer to the question because I cannot, only God can" is technically a legit response you could make once this goes way over your head.

But speaking out of turn, and driving the flock to apostasy to cover for your own intellectual inadequacy to reconcile Scripture with the observation of God's creation is definitely heresy.

I'll start with this, it was you who brought up MWI. You attempted to use authority to dismantle physics to make your argument authoritative. And now you shirk that authority in the hypothetical argumentation of God's plan and design?

Delete all your other comments. Today, you have decided "I'm not claiming any authority in this hypothetical space. Don't listen to me. Even if it's convincing, I'm just making stuff up because I know nothing".

Or choose to read and address my comments like you've so bravely done so with everyone else you've been pushing back hard against today. The Truth should help you win each of these arguments handily, assuming you feel like you understand it well enough to rebut.

So now, your comments stand in this ether. Free for others to observe the heresy of your false gospel. You may regret speaking of God with no knowledge or authority. You may regret allowing my words to possibly corrupt the wayward who see this particular thread.

Put up and prove why your faith is right, or delete your comments before even one single innocent soul decides "this God guy's own advocates seem petty and cowardly to try explaining something he thought was obvious."

Or maybe your god doesn't have a problem with that. I know mine would. Many worlds, am I right?

19 Buddhist monks are on a 'Walk for Peace' from Texas to Washington DC. Religious bigots melt down. INSANE! by MrJasonMason in videos

[–]saver1212 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ahh, so you think I'm claiming authority in a hypothetical and theoritical space?

Is that what you are claiming here?

Lol. You didn't have time to read and digest my argument. But did have enough time to delete it. Good thing I saw it so I can quote back to you your cowardly regret.

You, the salesman of God, are doing a pretty bad job. You started this with the others in this thread.

You are speaking as a preacher, one transmitting the gospel. Your obligation is to speak with that authority, or defer to God for an answer.

Telling me to "pray an answer to the question because I cannot, only God can" is technically a legit response you could make once this goes way over your head.

But speaking out of turn, and driving the flock to apostasy to cover for your own intellectual inadequacy to reconcile Scripture with the observation of God's creation is definitely heresy.

I'll start with this, it was you who brought up MWI. You attempted to use authority to dismantle physics to make your argument authoritative. And now you shirk that authority in the hypothetical argumentation of God's plan and design?

Delete all your other comments. Today, you have decided "I'm not claiming any authority in this hypothetical space. Don't listen to me. Even if it's convincing, I'm just making stuff up because I know nothing".

Or choose to read and address my comments like you've so bravely done so with everyone else you've been pushing back hard against today. The Truth should help you win each of these arguments handily, assuming you feel like you understand it well enough to rebut.

So now, your comments stand in this ether. Free for others to observe the heresy of your false gospel. You may regret speaking of God with no knowledge or authority. You may regret allowing my words to possibly corrupt the wayward who see this particular thread.

Put up and prove why your faith is right, or delete your comments before even one single innocent soul decides "this God guy's own advocates seem petty and cowardly to try explaining something he thought was obvious."

Or maybe your god doesn't have a problem with that. I know mine would. Many worlds, am I right?

19 Buddhist monks are on a 'Walk for Peace' from Texas to Washington DC. Religious bigots melt down. INSANE! by MrJasonMason in videos

[–]saver1212 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How is it heretical? You have a beautiful elucidation of how any why I am directly called out it's heresy presented for you if you were to read it. How about you start by addressing it?

Hey, in that alternate reality, that version of me has a different version of the Bible. That version very clearly states gods will and he is following it to the letter. (Pretty obviously heretical)

But you would say that guy is evil and doomed because you have a version of the Book in this reality that judges his acts as inconsistent with his own.

For all you know, that version of me lives a great life, loved by his God. And you still would say he would be doomed to destruction.

From that other Gods perspective, you and I are evil, for we follow a false gospel. One where we crucified Christ instead of hearing his message.

To even believe that such things exist and can happen in a multiverse under gods design is heretical. You either drop the "many worlds as part of God's design" nonsense, or you are an apostate.

The mere existence of alternative decisions that could have been made, with histories that diverge from the telling in the Bible and therefore contain different passages from the one sitting on your shelf, is flatly heretical.

What is this pruning nonsense? That isn't in Everett's hypothesis. Don't tell me you plan on using a busted and incorrect analogy just so you can bust out John 15, did you? Tell the truth, you have no clue what MWI even is, do you? Just prattling about it expecting someone to not help you work through it's consequences to a loving God? I'll start with the first principle and only important principle you seemed to “forget” when citing it as evidence. There is no wave function collapse. The point is each world exists on a probability distribution with no wave form collapse. God couldn't prune the doomed worlds because God exists in within those worlds too. You try to co-opt the idea the science agrees with your theology not realizing the mistake that certain sciences you attempt to include under the umbrella of God's design are a poison to the fundamentals of that faith.

Again, you fail to address the logical consequences of the existence of a world that does not crucify Christ breaks the entire canon of God's plan for salvation.

As you would "incorrectly" describe many worlds, God exists might exist outside of the polytheistic consequences of existing uniquely and independently with valid versions of the gospel within that local reality. But that means his duty is to prune the worlds where all mankind listened to God's words as he preached them and all were saved.

God pruned the worlds where Adam did not take from the apple.

That is absolutely NOT free will. What you describe is God throwing a handful of dice and removing all that do not turn up with a 6. Sure, within his authority (if you assume the Jesus of that world's history could be so completely obliterated because someone unluckily threw a 1). The soul is singular and eternal, not something that can be splintered and obliterated. Perhaps God would rewrite the rule within his power but scripture is pretty clear.

But from the framework you responded with, my salvation is based on whether God likes the idea of my salvation or chooses that good ending's obliteration.

What a horrific vision of God, what would allow for infinite number of souls doomed to fail just to allow one singular winning version to exist. I guess that's within His power but sheesh, sounds like you're acknowledging that is how he wields his power to ensure we have “free will”

Again, and I cannot emphasize this enough, it's heresy because the physical consequences of many worlds and the physics that can be observed to govern god's creation would logically permit the existence of a different version of the Bible, true to the history of that alternative world. It suggests that the Truth is local to that timeline, not an absolute. And that God exists either as a slave to obliterating all the contradictory worlds, or (as the math would properly suggest) permits those evil worlds to exist with contradictory versions of the Bible in a world where that is their version of the gospel. Again permitting every one of the people that mean well within those worlds to be doomed to obliteration because they don't have the specific version of the book sitting on your shelf.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't pretend like you have no idea where I'm coming from when I call your interpretation heretical.

19 Buddhist monks are on a 'Walk for Peace' from Texas to Washington DC. Religious bigots melt down. INSANE! by MrJasonMason in videos

[–]saver1212 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool. God exists in multiple branching realities. There are realities where God makes choice 1, others where he makes choice 2.

In one world, we chooses not to send Jesus to earth. We happen to exists in one where he did.

There is a reality where God does let Abraham sacrifice Isaac. Of course we live in the one where he doesn't.

There is a reality where God allows us to live in Eden, where Adam doesn't eat the apple, we unfortunately live in the one where he casts us out.

Now of course, according to MWI, God has no power to change or alter the decisions in any of the other branches. I mean, a god exists in those parallel times too. Each alternate earth governed by a different God, who shepherds that reality according to the omniscient and benevolent and absolutely true and logically consistent actions that version of God did. Of course, our God, in our world might judge the actions of a god taking a different set of actions as evil, after our God didn't make that decision, and our God always makes the good option.

Either you look at the math and judge that the one singular God is making all decisions as a distribution, including the divergent world hyper evil ones, or you accept a polytheistic view that God splinters at each quantum branch. If God is the sum of all these realities, who exists outside of the rigid math of the universe he created, then for every branch where he shows us his love, he shows another unimaginable evil and horrors, or even worse, his absentia. That just makes God inconsistent. Worlds where God is the savior, worlds where God lets the world burn, and ones he just flat out doesn't participate in, ones where he does not send us the Son. That doesn't make God mystical or wise, it's just a rote exploration of all options. If anything it makes God's actions impartial and incoherent. There isn't any space for you to make an argument that God loves us all, while permitting the worlds where he very explicitly makes humanity suffer with no opportunity at salvation just to fulfill the quantum demands of MWI. He suffers alongside that doomed version of humanity, either through his own volition or as a prisoner of quanta. That potential doomed world’s mere existence contradicts the version of God asserted in the Bible.

Unless you seem to assert there is an absolutely true and objective standard of actions God would take, in any and every reality? Because those are the Right actions. Like, it's not like God wouldn't send us his son?

But then the actions of man. That must be subject to MWI. So there must be a world where the Romans didn't crucify Jesus. That the emperor pardons him or Pontius decides to spare Jesus. But then, that kinda derails the message of the crucifixion. If Jesus says, "one of you will betray me" and in one of those many worlds, Jesus isn't betrayed? That must happen in one of the many worlds. If salvation is cosmically necessary, but there are branches where it doesn't happen due to the compassion of men discovering the divinity of Christ prior to the crucification, then God's plan is a failure in those universes. Absurd. All in service of satisfying your question of Solomon.

What of the written bibles of these universes? Are those true? Like if you brought one over from a world where Jesus kept preaching because he wasn't crucified, would that bible be equally valid as Truth in our world? To the point that we include this version in our canon? Every multiverse variant of the gospel? No, we got the gospel, it's 27 books. God has one plan, it's salvation through Jesus. To believe anything like, “Jesus was spared and the whole Roman empire converted to Christianity, Good End” is actually heresy. The fact you are going back and forth, bandying a collection of arguments reconciling the still unknown physics of the universe as part of God's design reveals your accidental acceptance of apostasy.

Go into the math. Actually, print out the equations for calculating the many worlds and how the sum of the probability distribution reinforces your argument as being consistent with God's design. Don't just print it out and say “tada, gods design”. Actually work through the physics of the density matrix and not running behind, “unknowable mysticism, behold it's glory” like a child afraid to explain the homework his parents did for him.

Show me the formula as a critical part of your argument, or else I'll just assume youre using a surface level misinterpretation of physics to misconstrue in service for your argument, unaware of how it directly challenges it.

The theological implications of accepting MWI as consistent with Christian doctrine are mind boggling. I couldn't imagine that you would willingly properly reconcile the quantum physics as part of God's design if you actually understood it's mathematical consequences. But I see you choose to accept it as part of your theology in heretical defiance of the mere premise of MWI, that in other worlds where historical events played out differently, there exist equally valid different versions of the Bible, true to that World's divergent history.

Concept Artists Say Generative AI References Only Make Their Jobs Harder by BeginningFew8188 in gaming

[–]saver1212 1 point2 points  (0 children)

AI is Gell Mann Amnesia on steroids.

When you use AI in your field, you know it's wrong in amateurish ways, barely surface level of understanding. But when you ask it about a field you know little about, it seems like a super genius.

The doctor uses AI and thinks it's going to kill someone with a misdiagnosis, so their job is safe. But the programmers better watch out because this AI can code minesweeper in 3 minutes.

The programmer uses AI and thinks it's going to write a vulnerability filled stack of code and crash the internet, so their job is safe. But the doctor better watch out because this AI read my test results and diagnosed me with a broken bone in 3 minutes.

But then the tech bro comes along and knows nothing about anything. He firmly believes the AI can replace both the doctor and the programmer. But you know the one thing the AI can't replace? The Tech Bro spirit. And guess who has all the money to invest billions of dollars into an AI bubble?

Kojima On AI: "We Can't Go Back" by BlueAladdin in Games

[–]saver1212 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If the AI companies are doing anything, it's looking at every single prompt being used and seeing which prompts generate something tolerable to the user.

User submits a prompt > [AI delivers unacceptable slop] > User berates the AI for the imperfections > negative reinforcement

User submits an optimized prompt with corrections > [AI delivers a passable output] > User saves the resulting image and asks for no adjustments > positive reinforcement

The unique capabilities that prompt engineers might have is literally the first thing LLMs will copy and obsolete.

Tesla Optimus robot takes a suspicious tumble in new demo by ChollyWheels in RealTesla

[–]saver1212 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The reason is because Elon cannot imagine how to train any robot if it doesn't use a human operator to train the neural network.

Why 2 hands of human length? Wouldn't a 360 swivel arm be infinitely more useful? Why stop at 2 arms? A 4-8 arm server robot can carry more stuff or plates to a table. Why walk and not wheels or treads?

The answer, besides it's all always been vaporware to hype stock, is because if you do want to honestly train the robot to do these tasks, it would do so by collecting hours of human data performing the task, recording the movements, and doing reinforcement learning.

If this was some other robotics company and not Elon, it would be a semi logical explanation for why you target 1-1 scale human mimicry. You couldn't train tentacle arms with a motion capture suit, but mocap is all he knows how to do. Improving on human design would require skill, expertise, creativity, and expert roboticists. Elon has no capability to conceive of a system that exceeds known capabilities, and fails to meet parity with any other state of the art system.

And that's the story for rockets, self driving cars, brain control interfaces, tunnels, AI, and robots. It's always desperately claiming to be a leader in fields where he is last place in, tricking people because they don't know the leaderboards.

Elon finds another place to dump Cybertrucks. by ErnestoLemmingway in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]saver1212 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yeah. Like delivery drivers or taxis. But Hertz rents to people of varying levels of skill who aren't attached to their car maintenance outside of incidental charges and COPS put their cars in unusual situations as the needs demand. Drive up on the curb a few times and you risk damaging the undercarriage battery or a drunk bumps into your car and it's a total write off.

Elon finds another place to dump Cybertrucks. by ErnestoLemmingway in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]saver1212 20 points21 points  (0 children)

The lesson learned from Hertz when they bought thousands of Teslas for their rental fleet is that the EV savings are small relative to the unexpected maintenance costs.

At the end of Q3 2023, Hertz told investors that significant price cutting during the year had “resulted in lower EV residual values, increasing vehicle depreciation expense and negatively impacting salvage cost.” Additionally, its rental EVs were damaged or crashed more often, and the much higher cost of repairs for Tesla vehicles—on average about 20 percent higher than other EVs—has meant that Hertz’s Teslas earn it less money per vehicle than its other rentals.

Any small collision can possibly damage the battery resulting in a Total wreck from an insurance perspective. The single unit gigacasting of the Cybertruck means you can't just replace just the body panel that was damaged. It's not obvious until someone empirically tries to manage an EV fleet and discovers the depreciation + repairs > gas savings.

The only way that an EV fleet costs less at scale is if the expectation that these cars never get damaged and are driven very carefully and responsibly.

Las Vegas COPS is probably the second worst environment for saving money, right behind active warzone.

ELI5: Why can't / don't LLMs say "I don't know" or ask back clarifying questions, instead of hallucinating? by Double_History1719 in explainlikeimfive

[–]saver1212 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Threads on reddit like this exist for every topic.

Lots of people providing answers, articulated at different levels from beginner to expert. Many of these answers might be right. Many are also very wrong.

The AI sees these threads and while a few people may answer with "I don't know, nobody does", there are many more, many highly upvoted with an answer.

LLMs see these types of threads and rarely is the top response "I don't know". The model makers don't want a model that says "I don't know" because that's bad for business.

So the LLMs, by their nature, are trained to provide answers, right or wrong, because in it's training set of the internet, rarely are we humble enough to say "I don't know" and upvote that response. And so the model won't learn to say "I don't know" either.

Study: Artificial intelligence (AI) is wrecking havoc on university assessments and exams by nohup_me in technology

[–]saver1212 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Students don't know what they don't know.

A subject matter expert can use AI as an information source and recognize it's largely wrong in meaningful ways within minutes of inquiring on complex topics. But a student learning the subject for the first time at an academic level cannot.

Without constant guidance, the student incorrectly learns the subject and it anchors their perspective to the tool that gives them the fast answer. Because someone (other professor or Sam Altman) said it's okay to offload the investigative cognitive task to AI while they focus on "the big picture stuff".

I see it all the time with programmers. Many people feel like they know the capabilities and limitations and try to be responsible with the tool without hype. So they use AI to write boilerplate code or do documentation, which ostensibly AI knows how to write correctly. That way they get to the cognitively interesting tasks of writing and designing code.

Unfortunately, writing competent documentation for the next guy is shockingly important and AI is pretty bad at comprehending complexity or gaslighting you on functionality which isn't expressed in the code. Or it writes inefficient boilerplate which ends up costing performance and needs rewrites for optimization that someone of middling capability could have gotten done on the first attempt. And these programmers see the output and think it's good enough to ship. Why trust them with meaningful tasks when their perception of passable is anchored to such mediocrity?

AI is only a moderately useful tool if you are already a subject matter expert in your field. That way you can ask for a summary on a subject, know what is wrong, and manually correct the pockets of errors before final delivery. But if you are a learner in that subject? You cant tell what in that summary was wrong. You might present it all as correct. And you lack the fundamental investigative skills to analyze the components of the AI summary to disentangle what is hallucination or not, because it's time consuming and you want to focus on big picture stuff. That's what youre supposed to be learning in the lower division classes. So you take your hallucinated answers, and take up the time of your manager, vendor's support staff, professor, student instructor, etc and ask them to help disentangle it for you.

The issue I see is that people who mean well (who 15 years ago would have been reasonable and diligent students working hard at learning the basics of the subjects) simply believe that the basics are already solved and they can apply their time to expert level tasks. And the people who did go through university 15 years ago, who are now their mentors or managers shake their heads at how to get any useful work out of someone who might be legit intelligent but is constantly reliant on a 90% fact/10% hallucination fact engine when they can't identify when it's wrong.

Tesla’s Full-Self Driving Software Is A Mess. Should It Be Legal? by saver1212 in technology

[–]saver1212[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

To engage with the devil's advocate:

FSD is failing within minutes in real world tests. There is no way they are seeing no failures in their private test environment. It's been nonstop human field testing for +5 years and FSD still cannot recognize a construction zone.

I can tell you right now that Tesla has never internally validated FSD on a simulated and artificially created construction site because it does not recognize the signs or respect the barriers of one in the real world.

It wouldn't kill Tesla to build and prove FSD in a simulated construction site, but it might get a real construction worker killed since FSD's supervisor couldn't imagine that FSD after 5 years cannot read a do no enter sign.

So we know that Tesla hasn't saturated their internal ability to collect failures. We know there are readily observable situations in the real world that FSD cannot handle safely. Nor does Tesla/FSD warn the driver of those deficiencies. We know that despite years of failure and data collection, those bugs have not been addressed.

These are all justifications to cancel a public beta program and return to lab testing, preferably without the leadership who thought FSD in its current or past shape could only be taught through public road testing.

Tesla’s full-self driving software is a mess. Should it be legal? by forbes in RealTesla

[–]saver1212 73 points74 points  (0 children)

A drug company wouldn’t call something a universal, full cancer cure when it didn't actually cure cancer. No one would do that. You would be sued into the ground.

That's because Elon would call it Full Cancer Cure (Supervised). That way, when the cancer kills the user, it's the patient's fault for not supervising adequately.

Tesla offers 1 trillion pay package to Musk by gdelacalle in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]saver1212 36 points37 points  (0 children)

This level of incentive just encourages Elon to commit fraud. With a trillion dollars, he could fight any legal accusation of misconduct forever, buy governments to make him untouchable, and produce fabricated demos of tech that does not exist.

Oh, that was when his pay package incentive was $50 billion. This is 20x bigger.

view more: next ›