It was just a matter of time, we’ve had automated vacuum cleaners for ages now.

Putting guns on them is a bit harder, you definitely want a well-tested system for that. But cameras is pretty easy.

Another advantage of text, for me at least, is that I can read much faster than I can listen. This is why I prefer text articles to news videos, even though video can often offer extra visual information over what photographs can offer.

That said, I do somewhat agree with the article’s concern that live conversation is an independent skill and potentially has its own unique side-benefits that might be becoming rarer.

Personally I usually interact with whichever one already has more engagement.

Very well summarized, I think this hits the majority of the most relevant points.

Funniest comment I’ve read in a pretty long time, props.

Ah, LinkedIn, exactly where I want to get nuanced answers to weird questions from.

I mainly see space exploration as an end itself as opposed to being “for” anything. It’s not so much a place to live and colonize, but something to further explore. No matter how bad the Earth gets, it’s going to be nicer than any of the other solar bodies, which are already pretty terrible for human habitation in pretty much every way.

Main advantage of a moonbase or orbital base would be cost and accessibility. It’s a lot easier to launch from the moon, if we did some of our construction and industry there. A lot of which could be automated eventually, you wouldn’t need a whole population there. More an outpost than a colony.

I’m sure colonies would appear eventually, but not in our lifetimes. But simply trying to put anything substantial up there would drive further advancements in the field.

Sure, if you want to spread the credit around, that’s fine. Just don’t try to exclude anyone specific just because they’re a bad person. Afaik progress has been steady with the re-useable rockets, there’s been a steady pace of launch attempts. I don’t really follow it closely though.

Creating the demand still gets you partial credit. He does not need to own a battery factory. Regarding rocketry, if it were that easy we’d have done it long ago. It’s an iterative technology, where versions come out that improve on previous models. This is something he actually is leading in, last I knew.

Credit where credit is due, he does deserve some where it is fair to give. All people deserve nuanced acknowledgement of any positives they have helped along, regardless of the balance of their actions.

Ah, well, that might cause some problems.

I’m willing to give him credit where credit is due. I am not willing to simply give him the benefit of any doubts though.

He does deserve credit for speeding innovation in the electric vehicle arena, no question. Battery technology was also pushed forward by this. You cannot say it wasn’t inevitable simply because entrenched interests were resisting though. This implies that A: big companies cannot change, and B: no other individuals were ever going to make a play with a new company. This is giving him the benefit of doubt. This positive is also colored by the fact that electric vehicles are a good and important step, but not really a solution to anything. You have to be careful that your electricity generation is clean, otherwise you simply move emissions from the tailpipe to the power plant.

Similarly, I do give him credit for spurring advances in re-useable rocketry. A Mars base, however, is a pretty terrible idea that is still many decades away from even the planning phase. A Moonbase or an orbital base, now that’s a better idea. I would go into why, but many, many people have already done this, and it’s a long, science-filled discussion.

These things granted, they do not exist in a vacuum. I also weigh them against any negatives Musk creates for the world. His gigafactory in Shanghai, his purchasing of twitter, his support for strongmen, pushing pro-Russian narratives etc.

When this weighing is done with as much neutrality and objectivity as I can, personally I find him wanting. On top of this, having formerly been a very big fan of his, this strikes as a betrayal. He used to be a positive impact on the world, but in the final balance, is no longer. I don’t quite hate him, but I am certainly no fan any more.

If you want to see things accurately, try to avoid bias both for, and against. Nobody actually deserves benefit of doubt. Make sure you understand the arguments both sides put forward. Then you can weigh. While we can never be perfectly objective and know all the factors, this will at least get a person closer to actual fairness.

When I personally do all this, I arrive at Elon simply being a major corporation, no different from the rest of them. Mainly resting on a bed of marketing bullshit. I treat him as such.

Very weak article, giving him credit as a free speech absolutist. Is he really, or does he ban people that attack him? Alludes to us having self-driving due to his innovations. Really? Other automakers seem neck and neck with him, with Mercedes having passed a major milestone before him, quite recently.

Does he really have hyperloops to dream up and Mars colonies to plan, or is that just marketing drivel to appeal to certain types?

This is almost fanboying in disguise. If you simply read it through the lens of being pro-racism, it’s suddenly a praise piece.

edit: Oh, and it doesn’t even try to answer the question it asks in its own headline.

I largely agree, current LLMs add no capabilities to humanity that it did not already possess. The point of the regulation is to encourage a certain degree of caution in future development though.

Personally I do think it’s a little overly broad. Google search can aid in a cyber security attack. The kill switch idea is also a little silly, and largely a waste of time dreamed up by watching too many Terminator and Matrix movies. While we eventually might reach a point where that becomes a prudent idea, we’re still quite far away.

Sure. But a kill switch might warrant some additional investment. It’s not like your other features.

Assuming the kill switch is a real kill switch, and not just casually shutting things down in a way where they can easily be turned back on.

That would be clever.

Note, I said safer, not completely safe. Even a hard line to a bunker simply needs someone to locate the line and activate it.

Completely safe does not and likely never will exist, as the history of human arms evolution should demonstrate.

Depends how its set up. So long as it’s fully independent and disconnected from existing digital infrastructure it should be safer. It could be as simple as explosives hard-wired with a buried line running up into some bunker up in the mountains.

Exactly. Marketing generally doesn’t try to speak to your rational forebrain. It’s going for your subconscious, by design. It’s why ads can be so random and still retain efficacy.

If it’s military tech, then the finer details are likely not part of the public domain. Anything that could be used to understand or develop a way to counteract the weapon more effectively, or sometimes even just understand its precise capabilities, would be secret.

It’s understandable that it does not sit well, I think that’s healthy. War is hell.

I don’t know about everyone else, but I had a great interest in war when I was a boy. Now as an adult, I’d rather have Mark explaining things to kids than anyone else they might seek out.