The real deal y0

  • 1 Post
  • 148 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 16th, 2023

help-circle
















  • He isnt wrong. This comes from somebody who technically uses ai daily to help develop ( github copilot in visual studio to assist in code prediction based on the code base of the solution ), but AI is marketed even worse than blockchain back in 2017. Its everywhere, in every product, even if it doesnt have ai or has nothing to do with it. Monitor ai shit? Mouse with ai? Hell, ive seen a sketch of a fucking toaster with ‘ai’.
    There is shit like microsoft recall, apple intelligence, bing co pilot, office co pilot, …
    All of those are just… Nothing special or useful. There are also chatbots which bring nothing new to the table either.
    Everyone and everything wants to market there stuff with ai and its disgusting.
    Does that mean that current ai tech cant bring anything to the table? No, it totally can, but 90% of ai stuff out there is, just like linus says, marketing bullshit.


  • As a software developer i know what iterative development means, its in our blood and brains ( or at least it should be ). Simulations can indeed only get you so far, and i agree sometimes you have to make things and take a plunge. However, and i would like to be really wrong here so correct me if im wrong, but other companies like nasa, do not just shoot shit up in space and hope for the best. They arent allowed to do so for a reason. They test and calculate everything very rigoursly to make sure itll hold up as expected. From thruster power, resistance to continues extreme heat from reentry, …
    All of that they do here, on earth, before shooting anything up into space. Otherwise things like the rover on mars would have needed like 20 tries instead of 2.

    These are things that looks like spacex is just throwing out the window.
    To take it back to software development, they are doing an iterative development ( which is very good for what they are doing! ) but their testing before production/release of software is so basic theyll just see how it responds out there. Thats a huge nono to me if youre going to end up crashing all those rockets in the sea killing a shit ton of nature in the process. Sometimes the means dont justify the costs to me, and this is one of them. Yes, the booster catching was nice to see ( eventhough it nearly ended badly ) and its idea is very good and needed, but the way to get there is…messy.


  • Specially this. How space x handles failures is a very hard nono in my book. “But we test in the field” is what space x says, and as a software developer its like saying “we test in production”.
    Yes youll get something use able faster, but its way way more costly in the long run and is nasty in between.
    My arse they cant test this stuff on earth. We have simulations, models, calculations, test, everything. Yes, things can and will sometimes still fail when going in production ( in flight ) but you want to lower the risk of it failing cause its costly as fuck.

    They dont seem to care though.

    Also, im not saying what they are building towards is bad, it really really isnt, but their methods is… Bad