Looks legit and serious. Needing a meeting invite is a barrier to exploiting but not a huge one-- this is right to treat zero click RCE over Zoom as a big deal. Kudos to the write-up for being an effective explanation that's not obviously AI written, though it was probably adapted from an AI report.
Good to know this is "discover" in the sense of "confirm, understand better" rather than "suddenly find out about". Otherwise this would be quite the background-tv-in-a-disaater-movie headline!
Same. Gutsy bet to make in the face of Fable / Mythos, but the multimodal quality is at least a promising technical/ product story to tell. Everyone knows throwing Opus at everything is wasteful and domain expertise should live in the weights eventually; the question is whether foundation model scaling will slow down enough soon enough for that to matter.
Or maybe this is just a warm-up / stopgap and Thinking Machines is betting on finding the next architectural breakthrough that lets it compete with the big foundation models?
Space is big and still very hard to get to. A kilogram of payload in orbit costs several times as much as a kilogram of silver on earth, even after SpaceX's aggressive scaling of capacity. No one's going to be spending that kind of money and effort carelessly. I was more worried about SpaceX becoming monopolistic, so I'm encouraged to see this deal.
Don't project your worries about pollution on Earth-- which is a much bigger problem!-- onto space industry which is at a much much earlier stage. The "burning-up" thing sounds extremely speculative, like you're looking around for reasons to dislike this. Space is exciting and inspiring-- and yes, that includes commercial uses, since realistically we couldn't afford to expand science or exploration in space much otherwise!
I'm an early adopter of AI products myself, but I'm always disgusted when I hear this kind of case being made for them. It's fear-mongering, plain and simple. The cloud, mobile, even crypto sounded like "join us in this exciting new world" at their most hyped. Why does AI so often sound like "get on board or you'll be obsolete"?
If the author really is right, that we're heading for a world with a cutthroat binary divide between the adopters and the non-adopters, then I know in my gut which side I want to be on, and it's not his.
It's a simple logical proposition though. Either one is using AI in some way, or one isn't. And only those who use it can benefit from it. And we know that there are definitely benefits. Therefore those who avoid it will miss out on said benefits, ie "left behind".
You could have said that about any successful technology ever! But for some reason everyone is anxious to say it about AI while being extremely vague about the benefits. (This is especially funny in the mouth of VPs and the like: "we're not sure what AI means for us, but we urgently need to adopt it so we don't fall behind!") If you want me to get deeper into AI tell me what it'll do for me, don't try to scare me with vague FOMO.
Heh, I find it interesting that you say this in relation to AI.
As an early adopter and - I assume - continuing user, I'm going to guess that you've encountered some of those benefits, and are anticipating even more over time. You know, which is what really matters. Those VPs et al are primarily bandwagonists who smell potentially more money, and that's all they usually care about. It's a tangent to the benefits, but also a useful one because it helps to keep those who have money invested in investing in AI so there isn't another winter.
Imagine a worst case scenario: the Herculaneum scrolls turn out to be just the works of this one mediocre pet philosopher. What would we still expect to learn from them, and what would the next step be?
Though I have an interest in Old Norse and I spend a lot of time reading Scandinavian runestones. > 90% of them are grave markers for a dead father, mother, brother, sister, cousin, etc. If I've learned anything from that, it's that people across time and space all lead lives as real and complex as anyone else's. Their joys were as high as mine have been and their sorrows as low as mine have been.
It's a hobby, there doesn't need to be much in the way of novel "data" for it to be rewarding. Though considering this guy found a nebula I wouldn't be surprised if there was some. The universe is big (citation needed) and good hobbyist telescopes are quite powerful; you have a lot of sky to explore and could easily be getting the best images ever of any particular patch of it.
I'm sure it's a lot of work for him, mostly maintenance and cleaning. Also it sounds like the remote operation hardware and software are provided by him-- that can't be trivial and probably means he doesn't break even on a given telescope for a few months at least. Plus whatever it costs him to recruit new customers.
I bet he makes a good living on his labor and whatever capital he has tied up in the land, but it doesn't sound like an easy business.
> Also it sounds like the remote operation hardware and software are provided by him
As a backyard astrophotographer, this hardware and software is pretty much standard even if you don’t send your equipment to a remote site and is part of the kit you send to the remote site.
While you can still manually point your telescope if you wanted, I don’t think many who are in the hobby still do this. Most people will use so-called ‘GoTo’ mounts. You basically tell it where to point and it will automatically do so and keep tracking that location (to compensate for the rotation of our planet).
It’s a little bit more involved than I’m describing it but not much.
I think it's literally just the pier, power and an ethernet connection provided and you use the software of the mount and image sensor combo you own through their internet.
