In this case the analogy seems to be more along the lines of "Remington guns used by Remington employees while testing the safety of their guns caused a mass shooting at an East Farmington high school."
Likely, but I am not sure. There were a few well-publicized cases where someone used an AI agent to hack a system. In many cases the exact details were missing. Sometimes it was the creator of the agent. At other times it was an independent lab. In one case it was someone who was tinkering and hacked the appointment system at a gym or something like that to get a better slot.
That's my point. The articles often gloss over or omit who was using the agent and focus on the fact that it was the agent that did the hacking. It's worded to absolve whoever operates the agent, and that is where responsibility ultimately lies.
I think you and I agree. If it was OpenAI employees who did the hacking using their own agent, then the analogy would be like you describe. I wish the article made that clear.
Hate to break it to you, but I don't think the AI doomers have a monopoly on orgies. You name the political / belief system and I'll find an orgy for you by 10pm.
I think you missed a factor of 1000 somewhere in there: Each satellite weighs about 1 ton, there are about 10,000 of them. That is 10,000 tons in orbit for the constellation, not 10. Assuming a 5 year decay, that's 10000/5/365 ~= 5 tons / day. Still about 10% of the natural incoming material, but considerably more than your "six hours worth per year".
> I think you missed a factor of 1000 somewhere in there... there are about 10,000 of them. That is 10,000 tons in orbit for the constellation, not 10.
I did. what. the. hell? Maybe my swiss-cheese brain read the "," in 10,413 as a decimal separator? I guess that's what I get for posting while old. Thanks for the correction and supporting arithmetic.
Though, I still stand by my "please for the love of everything, get to complaining about CO2 because this thing you're complaining about is a damn nothingburger" conclusion. (I am sufficiently aware to notice that that you're not OP, so the "you" in that pseudoquote is not directed at you.)
There are two separate incidents here in the same article. Yesterday a tire was filmed falling off a 777 that was 20 years old. The 737 Max that rolled off the tarmac happened today.
"Carbon is extracted from the air in the form of CO2 and combined with the hydrogen in a process called synthesis."
It seems like at least re-burning the carbon that's already in the air is better than burning new dug up carbon? This is at least not net atmospheric carbon positive. You can do sequestration too...
I am by no means a chemist (beyond a secondary school level), but burning CO2 doesn’t seem possible. Doesn’t burning through application of some energy split the bonds of complicated stable molecules into less complicated, but stable molecules (by adding oxygen), thus releasing energy.
In this case; how do they recombine the CO2 into more complicated hydrocarbons? And if it’s energy negative, is it better to do this, or to use it to capture carbon?
> In this case; how do they recombine the CO2 into more complicated hydrocarbons?
Fischer–Tropsch process.
> And if it’s energy negative, is it better to do this, or to use it to capture carbon?
It's obviously "energy negative", as it would be a violation of thermodynamics for it not to be, entropy being how it is. As far as doing it over carbon capture, I would be more interested in hearing your thoughts on why carbon capture would be a better alternative.
"In this case; how do they recombine..." that is exactly what the article is about. E-fuels are atmospheric carbon dioxide that is electrolyzed using renewable sources and combined with additional hydrogen in order to produce octane. So, my original parent is saying the process we should focus on is sequestration (Atmospheric carbon dioxide -> electrolyze to carbon and oxygen [this is the energy intensive step] -> bury the carbon and leave the oxygen -> harvest natural hydrocarbons / oil -> distill into various weights -> burn the octane). I propose achieving similar atmospheric carbon balance with similar energy inputs with the cycle (Atmospheric carbon dioxide -> electrolyze to carbon and oxygen [same energy per carbon] -> hydogenate the carbon to octane for portability and compatibility reasons -> burn the octane). The only point in doing all of this of course is the huge installed user base for engines that burn octane, a portable and stable fuel.
I think the parent is saying that the new CRO is bad not because they caused the dumpster fire - the new CRO is bad because after interviewing in January, they saw the dumpster fire and either thought it didn't matter, or that they could fix it. Not a case of "incompetent because they couldn't fix the problem", instead a case of "must be incompetent because they saw the books but took the job anyway".
Do you have to be a bad risk officer to be willing to get paid to save whatever is possible to save even if the ship is sinking? Maybe because of them five percent fewer businesses will go under because of SVB.
Because now the bank has to pay interest to depositors of $150M instead of $100M, which means that they'll pay a lower, less competitive rate. So, in order to keep customers, banks are incentivized to lend out any and all spare cash for whatever yield that they can get, in order to give attractive rates to depositors. Losing customers though shouldn't really be a problem for the bank, after all, those customers did deposit "too much" money - once enough have left to seek higher yields elsewhere, there will be less cash on the sidelines, and so higher yields for the remaining customers. I suppose if your whole philosophy is "growth at any cost", and you're measuring growth not just by AUM but also by number of customers, you get excess risk taking and yield chasing.
A: We have too many depositors! We are not getting enough yield to pay interest without taking on risk.
B: What if we reduced the interest we pay on deposits?
A: Then we'd stop getting new depositors! Our only option is to take on risk.
You are right, this feels like a very unsympathetic problem to have. If you are a regulated bank you need to act like a grown-up and understand that overworking the soil and underworking the soil will both give you a bad yield in the end.
At the SVB bought the securities in question, interest rates were 0 across nearly all savings products. SVB was trying to maximize profits for itself and shareholders. This isn't about attracting customers with high-yield accounts.
I feel most banks are coasting off the inertia from longtime and/or unsophisticated customers.
Up until I switched to a neobank late last year to get some actual yield on my savings, I'd been using the same brick-and-mortar checking and savings account I opened in high school.
Apparently your average person is much more likely to move homes than move banks. Bank accounts are incredibly sticky, and even though it's not really that hard to open up a new account (and maybe switch over some recurring transactions), people nevertheless don't do it.
Oh wow, see my other comment in another thread. I had a ridiculously bad experience trying to get a key fob made last week - all the numbers would lead me around in circles, then I'd get "spam caller" numbers calling me telling me they were on their way. Switching to Yelp reviews seemed to solve the problem for locksmiths in particular, and I really can't figure out why...
Replying to myself to add: for any other household service I probably wouldn't have even noticed. But, being in a vulnerable position, having sketchy locksmith services really freaked me out. You want my address and credit card info and also know that I have a disabled vehicle potentially outside of my garage? No thanks, not taking any extra chances here.
reply