It makes sense that a next token predictor could execute assembly code. This is fascinating work, especially with the memory implementation.

Agreed, I suspect that LLMs in the future will have separate (possibly standardized) decoding/encoding layers that plug into logic layers.

Right, anything that can be copied instantly for free cannot be realistically owned.

But why when Claude can write you a perfectly laggy tui in react?

It may be a coincidence but there has been an increase in thinly veiled humor in HN comments.

Would be fun to see some data on this and see if it matches or conflicts with your feeling. Probably someone out there with some public sentiment analysis of hn - I wonder if you can pull out snark or cynical sarcasm from something like that.

There are dozens of us!

— dozens!

Just wait, in a thousand years archaeologists will be talking about our pantheon of monsters that were greatly revered by all.

Because the damage it causes is not intentional, but instead due to total incompetence.

Many viruses end up causing more damage than they mean to, via bugs.

Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

Not at orbital speeds you can’t. You’re being deliberately obtuse.

I'm being hyperbolic about the paper airplanes, but I stand by my original point.

It is simultaneously true that Starship's capabilities are on track, and are at this moment just talk. I would bet that Starship will deliver within 10% of claimed specs, before 2030. But none of those have currently been proven.

The Blue Origin hate is mostly how opaque the program is compared to SpaceX.

Surely the could put a traditional upper stage on Super Heavy and just go directly to the moon, no? I’m not sure what the obsession with second stage reuse is, because you lose almost all your margin.

Falcon Heavy (as its name implies) is not capable as a super-heavy lift vehicle. Past GTO, it can only carry 18 tons. You need more than double that to reach the Moon and come back, as NASA did in the 1960s.

I'm not sure what the obsession with airplane reuse is. Why not just build a new one for each flight?

You don’t gain additional margin throwing away an airplane. Reuse is a lovely idea but the rocket equation is a harsh mistress.

Space X cares way more about reusability than the moon, they're not actually in a race to the moon. Step 1: build the best general solution. Step 2: do everything

You're confused. Elon said two weeks ago that they have given up on Mars and the Moon is the goal they're currently working on. He said it will probably take them another decade to catch up to NASA of the 1960s by reaching the Moon with a real super-heavy rocket that actually works.

He said moon first, not no Mars. And a decade to build a moon city, not to get there.

However what people say and their real reasons aren't always the same.

I assume Issacman went around to everyone and convinced them to say they're all switching on the moon, add another test flight to delay things, and in return they'll switch to using Starship in the future as they will cancel Block 1B of Artemis