Starship will play a key role in NASA’s upcoming Artemis missions. SpaceX was contracted to land Astronauts on the moon for Artemis 3 & 4 via a specialized lunar variant of Starship.

Starship will be the largest spacecraft ever developed, which will deliver unparalleled capabilities to the lunar surface, but will also require unprecedented refueling procedures. The lunar lander will need to be refueled 4+ times, each requiring a full launch of Starship, which is already larger than the Saturn V moon rockets of the 60’s.

Since it’s totally reusable, this will actually cost significantly less than competitor options.

We are definitely about to enter a new era of spaceflight.

> Not always.

But a lot of times, yes? And we call that intelligence.

Wouldn’t sites that Google and OpenAI crawl for data be very similar?

30% will help but something much more radical definitely needs to happen soon in this industry.

People have too much shit to do. If I ask an AI how to do something in three different ways it’s not going to be frustrated.

Because the simple fact is, most people don’t care if Amazon or Walmart knows they have a baby. They don’t feel like slaves to ads so the threat is nonexistent.

In the future we won’t worry about the environment when cooking things because it will all be powered by clean energy.

> but that doesn’t mean you need to apply it to everything or that it’s suitable for everything.

Suitable? Those that know how to use it will be able to create better arguments at a faster rate. It’s hugely relevant to all aspects of life.

We need to take advantage as fast as possible or others will for nefarious purposes first.

> When you start learning how to do things, it’s better to learn the hard way first, then learn the easier methods.

That’s fine but by middle school we need to be teaching them critical thinking and the Socratic method. AI can help with that and teach them how to use it.

> What you’re describing is a debate class. Those already exist, and will absolutely teach you how to bullshit way more than any other course.

I’m describing the Socratic Method. Everywhere it’s incorporated leads to better understanding of subject matter and of counter arguments.

Most schools don’t even have debate class. Some high schools have a debate club.

There’s literally no downside to incorporating it. If AI can allow us to do it more often then we should embrace it.

> The purpose is for the person to formulate and put down their ideas.

There can be multiple purposes. After a certain amount of time, kids are perfectly fine with doing that. Limiting them to just writing down their thoughts for 16 years straight is useless when we can incorporate so much more now.

> The paper at the end is just to show the teacher that they understand. The paper is not the purpose of the process, it’s just a measurement.

Good teachers will incorporate multiple goals into a single project.

In life, everything will be measured multiple different ways.

> Teachers don’t spend time having kids write both sides because the sides are immaterial to the purpose.

And that’s partially why I think education needs a dramatic reform. There’s literally no reason they can’t also include the Socratic Method to a greater degree in every relevant lesson.

> It’s why they have you write many papers on many subjects instead. Because the purpose isn’t to actually determine which sandwich is best for all time,

But that’s not the point of debate either!

The point is to show that despite research and thoughtful arguments, they can still not think of entire points of view and counter-arguments. It’s to expose them to other worldviews and ideas, and most importantly, it teaches that their “own words” are not the end of the conversation.

> it’s to determine if the student can come up with a reasonable argument and express it in their own words.

And debate increases that skill 10 fold because those ideas now have to actually stand up against challenge.

Do you know how often I’ve bullshitted a stupid argument for an essay and got an A because it simply contained an argument? We’re talking huge leaps in logic. That’s not where education should end.

> That’s why you do it. It’s practice. At no point is the purpose of a class to determine the correct answer through writing essays.

Then you’re teaching kids how to bullshit and aren’t instilling actually important lessons… just because we don’t like AI?

> We had a web dev at work who used an AI writer to make copyright for an email blast and what he submitted to was SO bad, but he was so proud of himself. He didn’t see what was wrong because his writing skills were very weak.

That’s because school failed him at teaching him reading comprehension.

This is what I want schools to teach: how to actually use this tech usefully.

Yes I know some people will use it to think for them, but that’s why we have to start teaching now how to understand what it’s actually outputting.

> In math, they still teach you the formula first and teachers have you write out your steps before you jump in to use a calculator.

That’s what I want for essay writing

> There was a fundamental skill and basis training first.

Why wouldn’t we still teach that?

> But I can see either way, adaptation to ai learning will be in high school and college will manifest, but I don’t see in primary school.

So what? The discussion was using AI in essay writing, and since the vast majority of that happens at the higher level, you would think that that is what most people would be referring to.

Nobody said we shouldn’t teach kids how to write.

I’m not so sure it will, when people use calculators, they still need to know the meaning of the output for it to be useful.

Either way, the end result will be that the people that use AI will be better at communication, persuasion, and influence.

> you’re writing essays to show you can think critically and express that reasonably in your own words.

With less time actually writing, you can spend so much more time on critical thinking.

“In your own words” is practically pointless if your words are wrong or lacking detail.

We should be teaching kids to understand what the output is saying and if it actually supports their argument. Then we should move on to debating different ideas so they are exposed to an even greater number of thoughts and viewpoints.

You can see Reddit fail at this on a daily basis, they will quote things that don’t support their argument at all, because they’ve only been taught “This is how you cite a source, and if you have that then you’re correct.”

> Teaching them to make prompts

That’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m talking about teaching them to read at a higher level at a lower age so they can actually comprehend the output.

Then move on to exposing them to different ideas and points of view.

Why do teachers only have students write one side of a persuasive essay instead of both 99% of the time? Because of the time and effort required to produce just one. But now even deeper levels of critical thinking are possible.

> It doesn’t matter if you’re never going to need to write an English essay as an adult, you’re going to have to develop your arguments and read as an adult. You’re just doing it on paper so the teacher can evaluate your learning, not because the paper is the end goal.

If quality communication as an adult is the goal, then the adults who are use AI will be able to do it faster and better than ones that don’t.

Since communication is the foundation of civilization, the ones who are taught to use it at a young age will have advantages over others.

This is the perfect opportunity to stop wasting so much time on individual spelling, sentence structure, and other writing basics and spend more time on persuasion, critical thinking, and debate.

God knows we know more of that…

> Because writing essays is also about learning how to express your points and get your ideas onto paper. It’s also a test of reading comprehension and logic.

It still takes reading comprehension and logic to parse valuable sentences from a ChatGPT output. I feel like “crafting” a college-level essay will be a great skill for high schooler to learn. And high school-level writing will be expected for middle schoolers. And so on.

Maybe expectations should just dramatically increase for students?

There is huge value in increasing the quality and quantity of communication. I’m not sure if it’s wise to keep kids away from this tech instead of immediately integrating it with their daily lives as soon as possible.

Lol and Reddit gets into such a tizzy when companies do this.

But it’s the government doing it so it’s whatever.

Makes you wonder who’s really pushing the “selling data is bad” propaganda.

Damn, with no other double decker aircraft, the next Air Force One will have to be a typical 777.

Doesn’t project the same level of power.

Yes, it’s disgusting.

Oh god they’re starting to make nuclear missile silos!

What?! Vending machines are broken most of the time?! No they’re not…

Are vending machines typically known for breaking down? Increased complexity in an established system is fine.

I’ve been expecting shoveling like this for a decade, but my bet was on McDonalds being the first mover. Subway makes sense, though. They are the number one fast food chain.

“Then the only escape will be the virtual world we control!”

Politicians run the military, the largest polluter on the planet. Yet many see them at the solution.

Maybe things aren’t totally black and white?

History doesn’t literally repeat itself, but it’s important to learn from the past, so we don’t make the same mistakes as others.

Lol okay so we’re starting with the basics today…

There’s already a version of Chromium that offers as much privacy as possible:

Brave

https://brave.com/

And get this, it doesn’t cost anything. In fact, if you want you can actually be rewarded for being served ads.

“Surely this one is so large that nothing could sink her…”