3 ms·

'Reach AGI', the same way SpaceX will put data centers in orbit. A pipe dream.

by jorisw 4mo ago

ben_w 4mo ago
I'm currently writing a blog post about data centres in orbit, and my current conclusion is that even though they can build one, they definitely can't put 1 million up there and would have better things to do if they could. AGI? Too loosely defined. They lack a lot of competences which humans recognise when we see them but find it hard to put into words; on the other hand what they can do they already do faster than any human (and have greater breadth than any single human, but this usually doesn't matter because "coder" and "economist" and "translator" gets solved in human teams by hiring three people). I do not think current ML has the tools to solve for quality. But we know it's possible for a really mediocre intelligence to make human level intelligence, because evolution made us, so for me the question of AGI is more a practical one: is it affordable? (I also think not at the present time, but that's an "I think" not "I am analyzing it carefully").
- trick-or-treat 4mo ago
  Maybe you missed the part where starlink / orbiting datacenters don't really have to even make money as long as they partially fund rocket launch tests. Or maybe you don't take Elon seriously when he talks about Mars.
  - ben_w 4mo ago
    > Maybe you missed the part where starlink / orbiting datacenters don't really have to even make money as long as they partially fund rocket launch tests. I am only dismissing the orbital data centres, I do see a future for Starlink. One with competition, but a future nonetheless. I'm old enough to remember the dot.com bubble and "we lose money on each unit and make up for it in scale": If they don't make sense, they don't help. Putting a single one in space, or even a handful, is physically possible! But even optimistic Alphabet researchers (and Alphabet owns more of SpaceX than the entire IPO) say this only makes sense at $200/kg, while early Starship launch costs while they sort out reusability be at best $400/kg and the researchers don't expect $200/kg until the mid-2030s even with a high launch rate: If the learning rate is sustained—which would require∼180 Starship launches/year—launch prices could fall to <$200/kg by∼2035 - section 2.4, https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.19468 https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.19468 At $200/kg, and using the payload estimates elsewhere in the paper (the learning rate is based on mass rather than launch count), they'd need to launch 370,000 tons (4.4 ibid); even at the "good enough" cost, $200/kg, they'd need to spend $200/kg * 3.7e8 kg = $7.4e10. That's a hell of an R&D spend for the next 10 years of a company whose lifetime revenue (not profit) is reportedly $4.6e10. My current draft has a few thousand words of additional problems, plus a bunch of things which I mention only to say why they are not, and some more where I say the research has yet to be done. > Or maybe you don't take Elon seriously when he talks about Mars. Used to, not any more. Has been too slow with Starship even before the fact that iteration with hardware is necessarily slowed down by a 2-year gap between launch windows. There's not even been any news about demonstration models of either Mars-rated or Starship-rated Sabatier processors, which would be an easy win and also win points for both environmentalism and energy independence viz. Iran/Hormuz.
    - trick-or-treat 4mo ago
      Ok so you're ignoring the entire thing. Sigh.
      - ben_w 4mo ago
        On the contrary: I've paid a lot of attention, causing me to look at it closely and determine it is a terrible idea worthy of an illustrated 5,000 word blog post explaining exactly how terrible. If you build the DC satellites as currently specified, you're strictly better off not launching them. That's how bad the idea is.
        trick-or-treat 4mo ago
        [dead]
NitpickLawyer 4mo ago
> will put data centers in orbit. A pipe dream. Cheap access to space was once a pipe dream. Reusable boosters were once a pipe dream. A new player beating Boeing to the ISS was once a pipe dream. LEO constellations were once a pipe dream. Launching thousands of satellites was once a pipe dream. You should know that a) they are already running "AI" chips on their current sats. and b) they are already producing kW of power on orbit and have ~10k sats on orbit. You can watch Scott Manley's video on it, where he does some rough calculations and explains the overall architecture. There is nothing stopping them to do this, from an engineering perspective. If it makes commercial sense, that's another question, but 5-10-20 years in the future things might change there as well.
- InsideOutSanta 4mo ago
  I don't think people's argument is that it's impossible to put data centers into space. The argument is that the downsides (radiation, cooling, maintenance, power) are so severe that it is pointless to do it at scale.
  - NitpickLawyer 4mo ago
    Go back to the megathreads when this came up. Even here on HN. Plenty of people used the argument that it can't be done, for various reasons. And my point was that at one point or the other there were many "downsides" for all the tech that SpaceX already has. Reusable boosters were seen as "uneconomical" and "pointless unless they can fly 10 times" by industry experts. They're now flying 30+times a booster. LEO constellations were similarly "full of downsides" plus "all the companies that tried it went bankrupt in the 90s", so "it's pointless". And so on.
    - InsideOutSanta 4mo ago
      Reusable boosters have clear upsides, though. Pretty much everything about data centers in space is worse than having them on Earth. Apart from niche use cases, the only reason you'd talk about data centers in space is if you had a company with rocket ships and needed a story to tie your rocket ships to the current AI craze.
chpatrick 4mo ago
I think it's such a vague term. If you showed someone in 2010 what we have now they would say it's science fiction.

'Reach AGI', the same way SpaceX will put data centers in orbit. A pipe dream.

by jorisw 4mo ago

'Reach AGI', the same way SpaceX will put data centers in orbit. A pipe dream.

ben_w 4mo ago

I'm currently writing a blog post about data centres in orbit, and my current conclusion is that even though they can build one, they definitely can't put 1 million up there and would have better things to do if they could. AGI? Too loosely defined. They lack a lot of competences which humans recognise when we see them but find it hard to put into words; on the other hand what they can do they already do faster than any human (and have greater breadth than any single human, but this usually doesn't matter because "coder" and "economist" and "translator" gets solved in human teams by hiring three people). I do not think current ML has the tools to solve for quality. But we know it's possible for a really mediocre intelligence to make human level intelligence, because evolution made us, so for me the question of AGI is more a practical one: is it affordable? (I also think not at the present time, but that's an "I think" not "I am analyzing it carefully").

trick-or-treat 4mo ago
Maybe you missed the part where starlink / orbiting datacenters don't really have to even make money as long as they partially fund rocket launch tests. Or maybe you don't take Elon seriously when he talks about Mars.
- ben_w 4mo ago
  > Maybe you missed the part where starlink / orbiting datacenters don't really have to even make money as long as they partially fund rocket launch tests. I am only dismissing the orbital data centres, I do see a future for Starlink. One with competition, but a future nonetheless. I'm old enough to remember the dot.com bubble and "we lose money on each unit and make up for it in scale": If they don't make sense, they don't help. Putting a single one in space, or even a handful, is physically possible! But even optimistic Alphabet researchers (and Alphabet owns more of SpaceX than the entire IPO) say this only makes sense at $200/kg, while early Starship launch costs while they sort out reusability be at best $400/kg and the researchers don't expect $200/kg until the mid-2030s even with a high launch rate: If the learning rate is sustained—which would require∼180 Starship launches/year—launch prices could fall to <$200/kg by∼2035 - section 2.4, https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.19468 https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.19468 At $200/kg, and using the payload estimates elsewhere in the paper (the learning rate is based on mass rather than launch count), they'd need to launch 370,000 tons (4.4 ibid); even at the "good enough" cost, $200/kg, they'd need to spend $200/kg * 3.7e8 kg = $7.4e10. That's a hell of an R&D spend for the next 10 years of a company whose lifetime revenue (not profit) is reportedly $4.6e10. My current draft has a few thousand words of additional problems, plus a bunch of things which I mention only to say why they are not, and some more where I say the research has yet to be done. > Or maybe you don't take Elon seriously when he talks about Mars. Used to, not any more. Has been too slow with Starship even before the fact that iteration with hardware is necessarily slowed down by a 2-year gap between launch windows. There's not even been any news about demonstration models of either Mars-rated or Starship-rated Sabatier processors, which would be an easy win and also win points for both environmentalism and energy independence viz. Iran/Hormuz.
  - trick-or-treat 4mo ago
    Ok so you're ignoring the entire thing. Sigh.
    - ben_w 4mo ago
      On the contrary: I've paid a lot of attention, causing me to look at it closely and determine it is a terrible idea worthy of an illustrated 5,000 word blog post explaining exactly how terrible. If you build the DC satellites as currently specified, you're strictly better off not launching them. That's how bad the idea is.
      - trick-or-treat 4mo ago
        [dead]

NitpickLawyer 4mo ago

> will put data centers in orbit. A pipe dream. Cheap access to space was once a pipe dream. Reusable boosters were once a pipe dream. A new player beating Boeing to the ISS was once a pipe dream. LEO constellations were once a pipe dream. Launching thousands of satellites was once a pipe dream. You should know that a) they are already running "AI" chips on their current sats. and b) they are already producing kW of power on orbit and have ~10k sats on orbit. You can watch Scott Manley's video on it, where he does some rough calculations and explains the overall architecture. There is nothing stopping them to do this, from an engineering perspective. If it makes commercial sense, that's another question, but 5-10-20 years in the future things might change there as well.

InsideOutSanta 4mo ago
I don't think people's argument is that it's impossible to put data centers into space. The argument is that the downsides (radiation, cooling, maintenance, power) are so severe that it is pointless to do it at scale.
- NitpickLawyer 4mo ago
  Go back to the megathreads when this came up. Even here on HN. Plenty of people used the argument that it can't be done, for various reasons. And my point was that at one point or the other there were many "downsides" for all the tech that SpaceX already has. Reusable boosters were seen as "uneconomical" and "pointless unless they can fly 10 times" by industry experts. They're now flying 30+times a booster. LEO constellations were similarly "full of downsides" plus "all the companies that tried it went bankrupt in the 90s", so "it's pointless". And so on.
  - InsideOutSanta 4mo ago
    Reusable boosters have clear upsides, though. Pretty much everything about data centers in space is worse than having them on Earth. Apart from niche use cases, the only reason you'd talk about data centers in space is if you had a company with rocket ships and needed a story to tie your rocket ships to the current AI craze.

chpatrick 4mo ago

I think it's such a vague term. If you showed someone in 2010 what we have now they would say it's science fiction.