If anyone at OpenAI is reading this, it would be super valuable if the contract might be updated to specifically make reference to the recent law prohibiting AI-based nuclear launch. On 2/27/2026 the Trump Administration made a statement to the Washington Post stating their support for this restriction (which is already law and would take an Act of Congress to amend).
FY2025 NDAA, Section 1638: Sense of Congress with Respect to use of Artificial Intelligence to Support Strategic Deterrence
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the considered use of artificial intelligence and machine learning tools presents opportunities to strengthen the security of critical strategic communications and early warning networks, improve the efficiency of planning processes to reduce the risk of collateral damage, and enhance U.S. capabilities for modeling weapons functionality in support of stockpile stewardship; and
(2) even with such applications, particular care must be taken to ensure that the incorporation of artificial intelligence and machine learning tools does not increase the risk that our Nation's most critical strategic assets can be compromised.
(b) Statement of policy.--
It is the policy of the United States that the use of artificial intelligence efforts should not compromise the integrity of nuclear safeguards, whether through the functionality of weapons systems, the validation of communications from command authorities, or the principle of requiring positive human actions in execution of decisions by the President with respect to the employment of nuclear weapons.
Within the Washington Post article cited below is the following policy statement from the Trump Administration’s DoD/DoW.
“It remains the Department’s policy that there is a human in the loop on all decisions on whether to employ nuclear weapons,” a senior defense official said. “There is no policy under consideration to put this decision in the hands of AI.”
This indicates the Administration’s support for and compliance with existing US law. (Section 1638 of the FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act). https://agora.eto.tech/instrument/1740
I hope that Gary reads this comment because an important correction is needed. The Block Nuclear Launch by Autonomous AI Act was passed as part (last sentence) of Section 1638 of the FY2025 NDAA:
SEC. 1638. Sense of Congress with respect to use of artificial intelligence to support strategic deterrence.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the considered use of artificial intelligence and machine learning tools presents opportunities to strengthen the security of critical strategic communications and early warning networks, improve the efficiency of planning processes to reduce the risk of collateral damage, and enhance U.S. capabilities for modeling weapons functionality in support of stockpile stewardship; and
(2) even with such applications, particular care must be taken to ensure that the incorporation of artificial intelligence and machine learning tools does not increase the risk that our Nation's most critical strategic assets can be compromised.
(b) Statement of policy.--It is the policy of the United States that the use of artificial intelligence efforts should not compromise the integrity of nuclear safeguards, whether through the functionality of weapons systems, the validation of communications from command authorities, or the principle of requiring positive human actions in execution of decisions by the President with respect to the employment of nuclear weapons.
I am a huge fan of SpaceX and I think that establishing a multi-planetary civilization is the most important thing to do, and, I’ll say bluntly, will save lives. But I think that knowingly causing miscarriage of a pregnancy should be investigated as manslaughter.
I know I'll sound like a rube but somehow it rubs me the wrong way that the rich and powerful are spending billions trying to establish multiplanetary civilisations despite the fact that we still have plenty of unfixed problems here at home that also deserve attention and resources, if not more so.
Are they being subsidized the same way my employer subsidizes my lifestyle?
If I sell steel, grain, boots, or launch services to the government and that gives me profits that I invest into some aspect of my business, I’m not sure that “subsidized by” is the clearest term.
Pretty much all of the commercial rocket companies are in America. There is competition between them. In the amount of money that SpaceX gets from the government is quite small compared to its overall operating expenses. They launched 90% of all mass to orbit, most of which is commercial.
The “SpaceX lives on government subsidies” thing is a myth.
It's probably more because of the news than the world. It's not possible for there not to be plenty of unfixed problems. No matter how many problems we solve -- and we've solved a hell of a lot over the past decades or century -- other existing problems will take their place as seeming to be important.
If I'm being too extreme, can you describe a world where you'd consider enough problems have been solved that it's worth spending billions colonizing space?
> that the rich and powerful are spending billions trying to establish multiplanetary civilisations
Citation needed. What are the current projects to make this happen? Starship is a work in progress, but that by itself wont be able to create a colony out of thin air.
I can't believe that pipedream being anything but the largest company town. Who needs Scrip when you have to work for... every vital resource, even air?
Not Rube-ish or rubish at all, IMO. I believe they're more interested in power or recreational drug use than problem-solving. Horses for courses.
How will it save lives? It'll maybe create more lives that persist beyond those on Earth, but I don't think it will meaningfully lower our global population, so a planetary catastrophe would still kill just as many people.
Also "the most important thing?"
You don't think there's any lower hanging fruit on-planet we could attend to first? Maybe addressing hunger, poverty, pollution, resource wars? You think getting the first ten-thousand people to Mars is a bigger priority than eradicating diseases that kill 10 times that many annually and that we have all the tools necessary to control? Really really?
> I am a huge fan of SpaceX and I think that establishing a multi-planetary civilization is the most important thing to do, and, I’ll say bluntly, will save lives.
How can we credibly talk about saving lives on other planets when we are demonstrably unable to protect life on the only habitable world we actually have? If we are failing at basic stewardship here, what evidence is there that we would act more responsibly anywhere else?
Well, one easy argument would be they we don’t have multiple countries on the other planet.
It’s easier to provide for your own people as a BDFL over your own assets than navigate politics between 250 different countries with their own interests.
How would sending a few dozen people to the subzero anoxic radioactive and sterile desert known as Mars help Humanity? Would be cool, don't get me wrong, but utterly useless for anything other than scientific research.
Sure, his ketamin-addled brain has been promising us that there would be millions of humans on Mars very soon for years now. That doesn't make it real. And that does not explain either how they'd survive, or even how they'd get there in the first place. Sending one ship to Mars is something, sending thousands is unfeasible in this century.
Also, I don't believe they'd ever be auto-sufficient, because of the aforementioned qualities of Mars: anoxic, sterile, radioactive and subzero. They'd certainly never thrive. More probably, they'd live in a kind of inescapable company-town, millions of miles away from the nearest jurisdiction, at the mercy of a guy known for brutalizing his workers, where going on strike means you probably just die. Sounds like absolute hell.
So, unfeasible, unrealistic, pointless. You can do much more good for humanity by investing here on Earth, obviously.
A completely unrealistic plan though, to anyone who has thought about it for half a second.
A mars colony is probably doable. A self-sustaining mars colony? For the length of time it would take a completely devastated Earth to recover? Absolutely impossible, at least with our current technology.
Think about the level of supply chain you'd need to get something like a computer or a solar panel made on Mars. Where do you get plastic? Iron ore? Copper? Pure fantasy.
I don't know what it would take to be self-sufficient but neither do you. Eventually humans will have to have a sustainable presence off Earth if we don't want our species to go extinct. Why can't somebody give it a try? Maybe we don't quite have the technology for it yet but it doesn't hurt to have a good go at it. Extinction would be a real tragedy because we might be the only hope of intelligent life in the whole universe ever. It's incredible how not a single other species we know of even comes close despite millions of years of evolution.
>But I think that knowingly causing miscarriage of a pregnancy should be investigated as manslaughter.
A) op didnt clarify who was doing the initiation of a miscarriage. There's unclarified ambiguity.
B) charging manslaughter for one person, and providing medical support for another for the same action of facilitating a miscarriage enters a very real legal discourse know as the entire debate around women's rights. If you would like to know more you can review the legal precedents associated therein.
> children dying from diseases whose vaccinations cost 1$
If there’s a government anywhere that isn’t providing this for its citizens, perhaps looking into why that government is such a failure would yield greater and more durable change than a point patch of just a few vaccines.
> If the top 1% would spend 1% of their wealth
Why should we expect/demand more generosity from only 1% of the population? Maybe everyone should spend 1% of their wealth on these efforts? It’s easy to be magnanimous with someone else’s wallet.
> Why should we expect/demand more generosity from only 1% of the population? Maybe everyone should spend 1% of their wealth on these efforts? It’s easy to be magnanimous with someone else’s wallet.
I was mainly referring to the "super rich" (Musk, Bezos, etc.) since this topic was about how SpaceX treats people and because "multi-planetary civilization" is primarily a thing I connect with their companies.
I do donate ~10% of my income. Not sure how much the average FAANG-CEO does donate.
> If there’s a government anywhere that isn’t providing this for its citizens, perhaps looking into why that government is such a failure would yield greater and more durable change than a point patch of just a few vaccines.
Failed States and Corruption do exist. They have various complicated reasons which to address would certainly not be "a low-hanging fruit".
Of course, solving these would be a good thing, but not within the scope of "donate food, donate medicine, pay teachers"
Suppose there’s a failed state or widespread corruption somewhere and a child there who needs $1 worth of vaccine or $1 worth of food.
What’s the chance that or fraction of your dollar, my dollar, or a billionaire’s dollar will end up actually reaching and helping that child? We’ve all seen food aid donations fail to reach those in need for precisely the same corruption that caused it to be needed in the first place.
> Why should we expect/demand more generosity from only 1% of the population?
“More” generosity? As if any is given. And it’s not about “generosity”, it’s about contributing to the society they are taking from. Billionaires exploit everyone else to the point of causing disease and death then hoard all the money produced from that for themselves.
So sick of this dumb conspiracy theory. The whole theory boils down to 'many people have worked in the US space industry since the 80s'. It very fucking dumb.
The increasing in funding for Space companies by DoD in the early SpaceX area (early 2000s) was related to DoD realizing they don't have enough assets over the middle east and wanted smaller companies and rockets to do faster deployment. This evolved further from DoD and since then with Firefly having done a number of missions based on that. Keyword is 'responsive launch'.
Space based missile defense in this period was clearly not the priority and communication, spy sats and navigation sats were getting the overwhelming amount of funding.
NASA on the other hand certainty didn't create COTS for missile defense reasons even if the leader of NASA was a supporter of investment missile defense (as many space people were and are). And the people who designed the COTS program certainty didn't think of that. There are detailed interviews with many of the people involved where they explain their reasons and how and why they came up with the programs.
As for Musk himself, there are details interviews with pretty much everybody that was involved early in SpaceX. And it quite clear that from the beginning Mars was the focus. Musk was not very well informed or interested in US space defense policy early on. And just like literally everybody, he knew much more about NASA then the DoD side of space. Remember that back then, there was much less information available about these things. Musk lived in Canada and then was busy with Internet stuff, he hardly was some kind of US defense nerd.
Its only when SpaceX moved on from the 'Greenhouse on Mars' project to a rocket company that Musk had to start seriously learning about the funding opportunities and commercial opportunity for small rockets. And eventually this lead him to sue DoD over access to contracts.
This whole conspiracy theory hinges on reinterpreting everything that happened in US space development from 1980 to 2020 as some hidden behind the scenes crusade to create Golden Dome and only collects evidence for this to be true and ignores literally all evidence that suggest this isn't the case.
The only thing that is totally clear, and nobody has ever disputed is that many space people in the US have thought about space missile defense since the 80s and always hoped that it would eventually happen.
Missile defense was always part of wider US space consideration, but claiming it was always the driving force for everything is simply not true.
The 'Mars concept' by SpaceX was not grounded in the same 'strategic goals' as anything NASA or DoD were planning at the time.
NASA at the time primary was doing a moon program called Constellation. And DoD was not really thinking much about deep space at all.
If you are talking about the other Mars program then I don't why that would be relevant in this context.
> Many forget the DC-X.
Not sure what you are implying here. NASA and DoD had periodic programs to do various things and test various things, including reuse. See X-33 and Rotary Rocket. But all those concepts involved Single Stage to Orbit and were arguably pretty dumb and incredibly unlikely to ever work.
If the question were about, did SpaceX invent re-usability or vertical landing then your point might be relevant, but it isn't.
Even if it was true that DC-X is the pure expression of some kind of missile defense obsessed deep state, then this would still be irrelevant for SpaceX.
Circadia Health | https://circadia.health | El Segundo (LA Area) | Full-Time | up to $220K USD
We help save lives through early detection of cardiopulmonary conditions using our proprietary radar-powered contactless sensor and AI. Our technology touches 40,000+ patients daily across nursing homes and home health.
Thank you for your warning about the normalization of deviance. Do you think there will be an AI agent software worm like NotPetya which will cause a lot of economic damage?
I'm expecting something like a malicious prompt injection which steals API keys and crypto wallets and uses additional tricks to spread itself further.
Or targeted prompt injections - like spear phishing attacks - against people with elevated privileges (think root sysadmins) who are known to be using coding agents.
It should have been called confabulation, hallucination is not the correct analog, tech bros simply used the first word they thought of and it unfortunately stuck.
Undesirable output might be more accurate, since there is absolutely no difference in the process of creating a useful output vs a “hallucination” other than the utility of the resulting data.
I had a partially formed insight along these lines, that LLMs exist in this latent space of information that has so little external grounding. A sort of deeamspace. I wonder if embodying them in robots will anchor them to some kind of ground-truth source?
Not necessarily - I think it works like Daniel Kahneman's System 1 and System 2. Your conscious system is System 2 - when it's not working correctly, you just fall back to System 1.
Independently, since the whole idea relies on resonance, it may be the case that an fMRI doesn't actually interfere with the "stochastic resonance" mechanic quite like TMS (transcranial magnetic simulation) seems to.
You know the mechanism of TMS is not mysterious. It requires no magnetoreception or "stochastic resonance". It is simply inducing electrical currents to modulate neural activity. Its effects are consistent with the known laws of physics, known properties of neurons, and decades of neuroscience research.
I think you're conflating one question with another. The "why" in question is why altering neural activity in that way results in clinical effects. It is not the "why" TMS alters neural activity.
I appreciate that you feel this way, but the mechanisms behind exactly which neural circuits are activated by TMS are simply not yet fully understood.
From 2024:
> Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive, FDA-cleared treatment for neuropsychiatric disorders with broad potential for new applications, but the neural circuits that are engaged during TMS are still poorly understood.
Again, different question. We know, fundamentally, how TMS causes stimulation/suppression of neural activity, and it does not require magnetoreception. Look at it this way: we don't fully understand how SSRI's cure depression, but we do know their primary target and that their mechanism of action is mediated through that primary target.
Whether or not earthworms feel pain is still up for debate. Some studies suggest they react to stimuli but don't process pain in the same way as animals with more complex nervous systems.
If you're looking to minimize harm to earthworms, here are some ideas:
* Avoid tilling: Tilling can physically injure earthworms.
* Use natural fertilizers: Chemical fertilizers can be harmful to earthworms.
* Maintain healthy soil: Healthy soil provides a good environment for earthworms to thrive.
Pain is fundamental. It's vital to an organism's survival. My suspicion is that all creatures feel pain or something just as uncomfortable so yes, earthworms and all creatures feel pain, from my view. So we need to be careful until we know better.
