llm/60ee7d4d-b465-422e-9101-5386aa22c98b/batch-0-e40411e9-6a5f-44ba-a761-16c552dd1c1f-input.json
The following is content for you to classify. Do not respond to the comments—classify them.
<topics>
1. Thermodynamics of Space Cooling
Related: The most prevalent technical debate centers on the difficulty of dissipating heat in a vacuum. Users cite the Stefan-Boltzmann law to argue that radiative cooling is inefficient compared to convection on Earth. Comparisons are frequently made to the International Space Station's massive radiators relative to its low compute power, with critics calculating that cooling high-wattage GPU clusters would require unfeasibly large radiator surface areas.
2. Financial Engineering and Bailouts
Related: Many users characterize the merger as a mechanism to rescue investors in underperforming assets like xAI and X (Twitter). Commenters describe the move as a "shell game," "Ponzi scheme," or "financial gymnastics," comparing it to Tesla's previous acquisition of SolarCity. The consensus among these critics is that the deal consolidates debt and obfuscates losses by attaching them to the highly valued SpaceX brand.
3. Technical Feasibility of Maintenance
Related: A recurring critique involves the impossibility of repairing hardware in orbit. Commenters with data center experience note that components like RAM, SSDs, and GPUs fail frequently and require physical replacement. Critics argue that without human technicians, the economic model collapses due to the high cost of launching replacement satellites versus swapping parts in a terrestrial server farm.
4. Elon Musk's Track Record
Related: Opinions on Musk are polarized, serving as a proxy for trust in the proposal. Supporters point to the success of reusable rockets and Starlink as proof that he solves impossible problems. Detractors cite missed timelines for Full Self-Driving (FSD), the Hyperloop, and the Cybertruck, as well as the depreciation of Twitter's value, to argue that this new plan is merely another cycle of overpromising and hype.
5. Launch Economics and Starship
Related: The economic viability of the proposal hinges on the success of the Starship rocket. Supporters argue that fully reusable heavy-lift vehicles will reduce launch costs by orders of magnitude, making mass deployment feasible. Skeptics counter that even with reduced launch costs, the sheer mass required for cooling systems, shielding, and hardware makes space data centers far more expensive than terrestrial alternatives.
6. Solar Power: Space vs. Earth
Related: There is a debate regarding the efficiency of harvesting solar energy. Proponents highlight the 24/7 availability of stronger sunlight in space. Critics argue that the atmosphere only absorbs a fraction of solar energy and that it is exponentially cheaper to build solar farms and battery storage on Earth, utilizing existing land like deserts or cornfields, rather than launching infrastructure into orbit.
7. National Security and Government
Related: Users discuss the implications of SpaceX being a critical defense contractor and "too big to fail." Concerns are raised about Musk's political involvement and potential conflicts of interest, with some suggesting that the government might eventually intervene or nationalize the company if its financial stability is threatened by merging with riskier ventures like xAI.
8. Radiation and Hardware Hardening
Related: Technical discussions highlight the destructive effect of cosmic rays and solar wind on electronics. Commenters note that "space-grade" hardware is typically older, slower, and much more expensive due to radiation hardening requirements. Using modern, high-performance consumer GPUs in space without massive shielding is viewed by many as a recipe for rapid hardware failure and data corruption.
9. IPO and Valuation Strategy
Related: The timing of the announcement relative to a potential SpaceX IPO is a major theme. Users speculate that the merger is intended to pump up the valuation of the combined entity to meme-stock levels or to allow private investors in xAI to cash out onto public market retail investors. The move is seen by some as a strategy to justify a trillion-dollar valuation.
10. Tesla and EV Market Context
Related: The discussion spills over into Tesla's performance, citing BYD overtaking Tesla in sales and the stagnation of EV lineups. Commenters wonder if Tesla will eventually be merged into the conglomerate to hide declining automotive margins, and whether Musk is pivoting to AI and space because the car business is becoming less dominant.
11. Space Manufacturing and Moon Bases
Related: Comments address the specific claims about building factories on the Moon and using mass drivers. While some see this as a visionary step toward a Kardashev Type II civilization, others dismiss it as science fiction fantasy that ignores the immense logistical and energetic costs of establishing lunar industry compared to solving problems on Earth.
12. Latency and Data Transmission
Related: The utility of space-based compute is questioned regarding latency. While some users suggest it could work for batch training or inference where lag isn't critical, others argue that the speed of light limits the utility for real-time applications. The challenge of beaming high-bandwidth data back to Earth via optical links is also debated.
13. Geopolitics and China
Related: Comparisons are made between the US commercial space sector and China's state-backed progress. Users discuss China's dominance in renewables and EV manufacturing (BYD) and their developing space capabilities, suggesting that the US needs companies like SpaceX to maintain a strategic edge, regardless of the financial maneuvering involved.
14. Environmental Impact of Space Junk
Related: Concerns are raised about the debris and pollution resulting from thousands of launches and de-orbiting satellites. Users mention the accumulation of aluminum oxide in the upper atmosphere from burning satellites and the risk of Kessler syndrome (cascading collisions) rendering low Earth orbit unusable.
15. Twitter/X Financial Health
Related: The financial state of X (formerly Twitter) is frequently cited as the root cause of the merger. Commenters speculate that the debt load from the Twitter acquisition is unsustainable, necessitating a bailout via the cash-rich or high-valuation SpaceX entity to prevent a collapse that would hurt Musk's reputation and net worth.
16. Radiator Design and Physics
Related: Detailed sub-threads explore specific engineering solutions for cooling, such as pyramidal shapes to keep radiators in shadow, ammonia loops, and droplet radiators. While some users provide calculations to show it is theoretically possible, others argue that the mass penalties for these systems destroy the economic case.
17. Public vs. Private Sector Efficiency
Related: A philosophical debate emerges regarding whether private companies like SpaceX allocate capital better than government agencies like NASA. Some argue that private industry innovates faster, while others contend that the profit motive leads to dangerous cost-cutting, financial fraud, and misallocation of resources into hype cycles.
18. AI Capability and Compute Demand
Related: The actual demand for space-based AI is questioned. Users ask why AI specifically needs to be in space versus other workloads, concluding that it is simply a buzzword attachment to drive investment. Doubts are cast on whether xAI's models (Grok) are competitive enough to warrant such massive infrastructure investment.
19. Legal and Regulatory Arbitrage
Related: Some users suggest that placing data centers in space or international waters is an attempt to bypass data privacy laws, copyright regulations, or environmental restrictions that apply to terrestrial data centers. This is viewed as a feature by some libertarian-leaning commenters and a danger by others.
20. Resource Utilization and Scarcity
Related: The argument that Earth is running out of land or energy for data centers is challenged. Commenters point out that the Earth has vast amounts of non-arable land (deserts) and that local power constraints are political or infrastructural distribution issues rather than fundamental limits that require going to space.
0. Does not fit well in any category
</topics>
<comments_to_classify>
[
{
"id": "46862435",
"text": "> it is possible to put 500 to 1000 TW/year of AI satellites into deep space, meaningfully ascend the Kardashev scale and harness a non-trivial percentage of the Sun’s power\n\nWe currently make around 1 TW of photovoltaic cells per year, globally. The proposal here is to launch that much to space every 9 hours, complete with attached computers, continuously, from the moon.\n\nedit: Also, this would capture a very trivial percentage of the Sun's power. A few trillionths per year."
}
,
{
"id": "46864455",
"text": "We also shouldn't overlook the fact that the proposal entirely glosses over the implication of the alternative benefits we might realize if humanity achieved the incredible engineering and technical capacity necessary to make this version of space AI happen.\n\nThink about it. Elon conjures up a vision of the future where we've managed to increase our solar cell manufacturing capacity by two whole orders of magnitude and have the space launch capability for all of it along with tons and tons of other stuff and the best he comes up with is...GPUs in orbit?\n\nThis is essentially the superhero gadget technology problem, where comic books and movies gloss over the the civilization changing implications of some technology the hero invents to punch bad guys harder. Don't get me wrong, the idea of orbiting data centers is kind of cool if we can pull it off. But being able to pull if off implies an ability to do a lot more interesting things. The problem is that this is both wildly overambitious and somehow incredibly myopic at the same time."
}
,
{
"id": "46866633",
"text": "A lot of great inventions we now take for granted initially came with little motivation other than being able to kill each other more effectively. GPS, radar, jet engines, drones, super glue, microwaves, canned food, computers, even the internet. Contrary to the narrative of the internet being about sharing science, ARPANET was pushed by the DoD as a means of maintaining comms during nuclear war. It was then adopted by universities and research labs and started along the trajectory most are more familiar with.\n\nThe tale of computers is even more absurd. The first programmable, electric, and general-purpose digital computer was ENIAC. [1] It was built to... calculate artillery firing tables. I expect in the future that the idea of putting a bunch of solar into space to run GPUs for LLMs will probably seem, at the minimum - quaint, but that doesn't mean the story ends there.\n\n[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC"
}
,
{
"id": "46868145",
"text": "That’s not the point of the person you are replying to. They are saying if we somehow come up with the tech that makes harnessing the sun a thing, the best we can still do is put a bunch of GPUs in space? It makes no sense."
}
,
{
"id": "46868269",
"text": "It kinda does make sense if you consider that solar panels in space have been used for a very long time (to power satellites). However, getting the electricity they generate down to Earth is very complicated, so you end up having to use it in space, and one of few things that would make sense for that is indeed data centers, because getting the data to Earth is easier (and Elon already handily has a solution for that).\n\nHowever I'm curious how many solar panels you would need to power a typical data center. Are we talking something like a large satellite, or rather a huge satellite with ISS-size solar arrays bolted on? Getting rid of the copious amounts of heat that data centers generate might also be a challenge ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_thermal_control )..."
}
,
{
"id": "46869170",
"text": "> It kinda does make sense if you consider that solar panels in space have been used for a very long time (to power satellites).\n\nIt stops making sense the second you ask how you’d dissipate the heat any GPU would create. Sure, you could have vapour chambers. To where? Would this need square kilometers of radiators on top of square kilometers of solar panels? All this just to have Grok in space?"
}
,
{
"id": "46871810",
"text": "You have a dark radiating side on the back of the solar panels. You can spread the GPUs around the solar panels. All the energy in comes from the sun so the temperature should be much the same as any dark panel like object floating in sunlight in space."
}
,
{
"id": "46871738",
"text": "> It stops making sense the second you ask how you’d dissipate the heat any GPU would create.\n\nThe answer, as you surmised, is indeed radiators."
}
,
{
"id": "46869998",
"text": "But space is very cold, so no problem there /sarcasm"
}
,
{
"id": "46868511",
"text": "The plan seems to be for lots and lots of smaller satellites.\n\nFor inferencing it can work well. One satellite could contain a handful of CPUs and do batch inferencing of even very large models, perhaps in the beginning at low speeds. Currently most AI workloads are interactive but I can't see that staying true for long, as things improve and they can be trusted to work independently for longer it makes more sense to just queue stuff up and not worry about exactly how high your TTFT is.\n\nFor training I don't see it today. In future maybe. But then, most AI workloads in future should be inferencing not training anyway."
}
,
{
"id": "46868486",
"text": "A 10MW data center would require square kilometers of solar arrays, even in space.\n\nIt’s just as real as the 25k Model 3."
}
,
{
"id": "46871847",
"text": "0.2 sq km approx."
}
,
{
"id": "46868525",
"text": ">Getting rid of the copious amounts of heat that data centers generate might also be a challenge\n\nat 70 Celsius - normal for GPU - 1.5m2 radiates something like 1KWt (which requires 4m2 of panels to collect), so doesn't look to a be an issue. (some look to ISS which is a bad example - the ISS needs 20 Celsius, and black body radiation is T^4)"
}
,
{
"id": "46869925",
"text": "So for the ISS at 20c you'd get 481 W/m^2 so you'd only need 2.3m2.\nSo comparing the ISS at 20c to space datacenters at 70c you get an improvement of 63%. Nice, but doesn't feel game-changing.\n\nThe power radiated is T^4, but 70c is only about 17.1% warmer than 20c because you need to compare in kelvin."
}
,
{
"id": "46869423",
"text": "Sending post-compute radio waves to Earth is much safer than sending back TW of power."
}
,
{
"id": "46871617",
"text": "That's even more reason that if we manage to increase the amount of solar energy cells by 1000x there are so many more effective ways to use it than immediately flinging them into space. They're not getting constructed as satellites mid-orbit, after all."
}
,
{
"id": "46872072",
"text": "The problem Elon is trying to address is a societal one, not a technical one. The amount of push back on clean energy generation and manufacturing prevents data centers on earth from being as feasible as they should be. He only got his newly opened xAI data center open using temporary generators on trailers and skirting the permitting process by using laws designed for things like traveling circuses."
}
,
{
"id": "46868195",
"text": ">the best we can\n\noh, we'll sure find a way to weaponize that energy for example - just imagine all those panels simultaneously turning their reflective back in a way to form gigantic mirror to focus reflected solar energy on your enemy, be that enemy in space or on the Earth/Moon/Mars ground. Basically space-scale version of 'death ray scyscrapper' https://www.businessinsider.com/death-ray-skyscraper-is-wrea... .\n\nBack in the day the Star Wars program was intending to use nuclear explosions to power the lasers, i guess once all that solar for AI gets deployed in space we wouldn't need the explosions anymore.\n\nInteresting that such space deployment can deny access to space to anybody else, and that means that any competitive superpower has to rush to deploy similar scale system of their own. Space race v2."
}
,
{
"id": "46868341",
"text": "Pick any Gundam series and watch the last 5 or 6 episodes, at least through the Gundam SEED/Destiny era. At least part of the plot will invariably include a space-based superweapon being deployed by one side of the war to end all wars and the the plot for a few episodes will include the other side engaging in a series of challenges to keep that from firing again and destroying it if possible."
}
,
{
"id": "46867009",
"text": "I think the Colossus[1] predated the ENIAC but is still in line with your general theme of doing stuff for the military. In this case it was used for cipher breaking, not firing calculations.\n\nYou could argue that it doesn't really count though because it was only turing complete in theory: \"A Colossus computer was thus not a fully Turing complete machine. However, University of San Francisco professor Benjamin Wells has shown that if all ten Colossus machines made were rearranged in a specific cluster, then the entire set of computers could have simulated a universal Turing machine, and thus be Turing complete.\"\n\n[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer"
}
,
{
"id": "46867702",
"text": "> You could argue that it doesn't really count though because it was only turing complete in theory\n\nThen you have to also count the Z3 which predates the Colossus by 2 years.\n\n[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z3_(computer)"
}
,
{
"id": "46870982",
"text": "The only purely military thing is rockets and everything space related, there's just no way private businesses would've poured so much money into it\n\nComputers and internet being storage, processing and communication systems are clearly useful for civilian purposes"
}
,
{
"id": "46868376",
"text": "Yes, but isn't that pretty much the point of the person you replied to? We know that a lot of inventions were motivated by that, and so it is incredibly myopic to not pause and try to think through the likely far broader implications."
}
,
{
"id": "46868531",
"text": "OK, so what are they?\n\nScaling photovoltaic production doesn't seem likely to have many broader implications on its own. At best, it makes it easier to change the grid to renewable power, if you ignore the intermittency problem that still exists even at huge scales. PV fabs aren't really reusable for other purposes though, and PV tech is pretty mature already, so it's not clear what scaling that up will do.\n\nScaling rocketry has several fascinating implications but Elon already covered many of them in his blog post.\n\nScaling AI - just read the HN front page every day ;)\n\nWhat are we missing here? Some combinatoric thing?"
}
,
{
"id": "46872254",
"text": "> doesn't seem likely to have many broader implications on its own\n\nConsidering how foundational energy is to our modern economy, energy several orders of magnitude cheaper seems quite likely to have massive implications.\n\nYes it might be intermittent, but I'm quite confident that somebody will figure out how to effectively convert intermittent energy costing millicents into useful products and services.\n\nIf nothing else, incredibly cheap intermittent energy can be cheaply converted to non-intermittent energy inefficiently, or to produce the enablers for that."
}
,
{
"id": "46869619",
"text": "Scaling up PV production to the point where we could convert the entire Earth's electricity generation to solar is incredibly significant.\n\nYes there's the problem of intermittency, varying sun availability and so forth - which is why solar will never provide 100% of our power and we'll also need grid-scale storage facilities and domestic batteries and all sorts of stuff - but just imagine being able to make that many panels in the first place! Literally solar on every roof, that's transformative.\n\nBut sure, let's send it all to space to power questionable \"AI\" datacentres so we can make more fake nudes."
}
,
{
"id": "46871259",
"text": "> Scaling photovoltaic production doesn't seem likely to have many broader implications on its own\n\nMusk is suggesting manufacture at a scale sufficient to keep the Earth's entire land area\ntiled in working PV.\n\nIf the maths I've just looked at is correct (first glance said yes but I wouldn't swear to it), that on the ground would warm the earth by 22 C just by being darker than soil; that in the correct orbit would cool it by 33 C by blocking sunlight."
}
,
{
"id": "46869707",
"text": "Just scratching at the surface, assuming the increase in production capacity is only realistically possible if you can bring prices down (or this \"project\" would start to consume a proportion of economic output large enough to seem implausible), you can address the intermittency problem in several ways:\n\nDriving down the cost makes massive overprovision a means of reducing the intermittency because you will be able to cover demand at proportionally far lower output, which also means you'll be able to cover demands in far larger areas, even before looking at storage.\n\nBut lower solar costs would also make storage more cost effective, since power cost will be a lower proportion of the amortised cost of the total system. Same with increasing transmission investments to allow smoothing load. Ever cost drop for solar will make it able to cover a larger proportion of total power demand, and we're nowhere near maximising viable total capacity even at current costs.\n\nA whole lot of industrial costs are also affected by energy prices. Drive down this down, and you should expect price drops in other areas as well as industrial uses where energy expensive processes are not cost-effective today.\n\nThe geopolitical consequences of a dramatic acceleration of the drop in dependency on oil and gas would also take decades to play out.\n\nAt the same time, if you can drive down the cost of energy by making solar so much cheaper, you also make earth-bound data centres more cost-competive, and the cost-advantage of space-bound data centres would be accordingly lower.\n\nI think it's an interesting idea to explore (but there's the whole issue of cooling being far harder in space), but I also think the effects would be far broader. By all means, if Musk wants to poor resources into making solar cheap enough for this kind of project to be viable, he should go ahead - maybe it'll consume enough of time to give him less time to plan a teenage edgelor - because I think the societal effects of driving down energy costs would generally be positive, AI or not, it just screams of being a justification for an xAI purchase done mostly for his personal financial engineering."
}
,
{
"id": "46866702",
"text": "Yes, but as Ron Perlman famously said in the beginning of Fallout, \"War never changes\".\n\nI would be more shocked that we eliminated war than if we achieved this version of Elon's future.\n\nIt makes sense to think that we will continue to make scientific progress through war and self defense.\n\nReason being, nothing is more motivating than wanting to survive"
}
,
{
"id": "46867440",
"text": "I'm starting to wonder if a person like Elon with his... morals... is who we want to be creating a vision for the future."
}
,
{
"id": "46868744",
"text": "Starting?"
}
,
{
"id": "46866782",
"text": "Not to go heads I win, tails you lose, but even if we go down this path - it's the same story because militaries are investing heavily in LLM stuff, both overtly and covertly. Outside of its obvious uses in modeling, data management, and other such things - there also seems to be a fairly widespread belief, among the powers that be, that if you just say the magic words to somebody, that you can make them believe anything. So hyper-scaling LLM potential has direct military application, same as Starlink and Starship."
}
,
{
"id": "46868174",
"text": "I think it's much simpler: smart mass surveillance. With LLMs you can finally read and analyze all messages people send to each other"
}
,
{
"id": "46866720",
"text": "The digital internet began with the telegraphy network in the early 1800s.\n\nMany, many network protocols were developed and used."
}
,
{
"id": "46867333",
"text": "> with the telegraphy network in the early 1800s.\n\nLate 1700 actually, and war was indeed a key motivation for the deployment of the Télégraphe Chappe ."
}
,
{
"id": "46867836",
"text": "See \"The Victorian Internet: The Remarkable Story of the Telegraph and the Nineteenth Century's On-line Pioneers\"\n\nhttps://www.amazon.com/dp/162040592X\n\nTélégraphe Chappe was a semaphore system using flags. It was not an electrical telegraph, nor was it binary."
}
,
{
"id": "46872055",
"text": "It was optical. The modern internet mostly goes over optical fiber."
}
,
{
"id": "46870392",
"text": "It wasn't binary nor electrical, but it was already digital. Excluding it would be arbitrarily restrictive."
}
,
{
"id": "46866941",
"text": "Really? That is so interesting - which ones? Any ancestors of commonly used ones today?"
}
,
{
"id": "46867819",
"text": "Off the top of my head BIX, Prodigy, Compuserve, MCIMail, BBS, Ethernet, Token Ring, $25 Network, AOL, Timeshare, Kermit, Fax\n\nAnyone with 2+ computers immediately thought about connecting them."
}
,
{
"id": "46869154",
"text": "Well computers are a funny story. The groundwork had been laid and the theoretical and engineering advances that would produce programmable digital computers were well underway in the 1930s. It would have happened very soon even if there was no war, but of course WWII happened right in 1939, so obviously computers made at that time had the purpose of calculating artillery paths or decrypting German messages. But it would be incorrect to say that military applications in WWII are the reason computers were invented."
}
,
{
"id": "46871409",
"text": "> Contrary to the narrative of the internet being about sharing science, ARPANET was pushed by the DoD as a means of maintaining comms during nuclear war.\n\n[citation needed]\n\nBecause according to Bob Taylor, who initially got the funding for what became ARPANET:\n\n> Taylor had been the young director of the office within the Defense Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency overseeing computer research, and he was the one who had started theARPANET . The project had embodied the most peaceful intentions—to link computers at scientific laboratories across the country so that researchers might share computer resources. Taylor knew theARPANET and its progeny, the Internet, had nothing to do with supporting or surviving war—never did.Yet he felt fairly alone in carrying that knowledge.\n\n> Lately, the mainstream press had picked up the grim myth of a nuclear survival scenario and had presented it as an established truth. When* Time magazine committed the error, Taylor wrote a letter to the editor, but the magazine didn’t print it. The effort to set the record straight was like chasing the wind; Taylor was beginning to feel like a crank.\n\n* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/281818.Where_Wizards_Sta... § Prologue\n\n> Taylor told the ARPA director he needed to discuss funding for a networking experiment he had in mind. Herzfeld had talked about networking with Taylor a bit already, so the idea wasn’t new to him. He had also visited Taylor’s office, where he witnessed the annoying exercise of logging on to three different computers. And a few years earlier he had even fallen under the spell of Licklider himself when he attended Lick’s lectures on interactive computing.\n\n> Taylor gave his boss a quick briefing: IPTO contractors, most of whom were at research universities, were beginning to request more and more computer resources. Every principal investigator, it seemed, wanted his own computer. Not only was there an obvious duplication of effort across the research community, but it was getting damned expensive. Computers weren’t small and they weren’t cheap. Why not try tying them all together? By building a system of electronic links between machines, researchers doing similar work in different parts of the country could share resources and results more easily. […]\n\n* Wizards § Chapter 1\n\nThe first four IMPs were UCLA, SRI, UCSB, and Utah. Then BBN, MIT, RAND, System Development Corp., and\nHarvard. Next Lincoln Laboratory and Stanford, and by the end of 1970 Carnegie-Mellon University and Case Western Reserve University.\n\nIt was only \"later in the 1970s\" that command and control was considered more (Lukasik):\n\n* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET#Debate_about_design_go...\n\nBut the first two people who get the project going, Taylor and Herzfeld, were about the efficient use of expensive computer resources for research. Look at the firs >dozen sites and they were about linking researchers: the first DoD site wasn't connected until 3-4 years after things go going, and there was nothing classified about it. MILNET didn't occur until 1984:\n\n* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET#Operation"
}
,
{
"id": "46871639",
"text": "Reed Richards is Useless\n\nhttps://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReedRichardsIsUs..."
}
,
{
"id": "46866474",
"text": "> But being able to pull if off implies an ability to do a lot more interesting things.\n\nThose interesting things won't pump up the perceived value of Musk companies to stratospheric levels - or dare I say - to the moon. He needs the public to believe that to earn the trillion-dollar package from the Tesla-Twitter-SpaceX conglomerate, even if the latter turns out to be the only profitable arm of the conglomerate."
}
,
{
"id": "46872005",
"text": "\"TwitslaX\""
}
,
{
"id": "46866129",
"text": "Yeah it does not make a whole lot of sense as the useful lifespan of the gpus in 4-6 years. Sooo what happens when you need to upgrade or repair?"
}
,
{
"id": "46866314",
"text": "This is a question that analysts don't even ask on earnings calls for companies with lowly earthbound datacenters full of the same GPUs.\n\nThe stock moves based on the same promise that's already unchecked without this new \"in space\" suffix:\n\nWe'll build datacenters using money we don't have yet, fill them with GPUs we haven't secured or even sourced, power them with infrastructure that can't be built in the promised time, and profit on their inference time over an ever-increasing (on paper) lifespan."
}
,
{
"id": "46866378",
"text": "> This is a question that analysts don't even ask\n\nOn the contrary, data centers continue to pop up deploying thousands of GPUs specifically because the numbers work out.\n\nThe H100 launched at $30k GPU and rented for $2.50/hr. It's been 3 years since launch, the rent price is still around $2.50.\n\nDuring these 3 years, it has brought in $65k in revenue."
}
,
{
"id": "46870537",
"text": "They worked out because there was an excess of energy and water to handle it.\n\nWe will see how the maths works out given there is 19 GW shortage of power. 7 year lead time for Siemens power turbines, 3-5 years for transformers.\n\nRaw commodities are shooting up, not enough education to cover nuclear and SMEs and the RoI is already underwater."
}
,
{
"id": "46871439",
"text": "My cynical take is that it'll works out just fine for the data centers, but the neighbouring communities won't care for the constant rolling blackouts."
}
]
</comments_to_classify>
Based on the comments above, assign each to up to 3 relevant topics.
Return ONLY a JSON array with this exact structure (no other text):
[
{
"id": "comment_id_1",
"topics": [
1,
3,
5
]
}
,
{
"id": "comment_id_2",
"topics": [
2
]
}
,
{
"id": "comment_id_3",
"topics": [
0
]
}
,
...
]
Rules:
- Each comment can have 0 to 3 topics
- Use 1-based topic indices for matches
- Use index 0 if the comment does not fit well in any category
- Only assign topics that are genuinely relevant to the comment
Remember: Output ONLY the JSON array, no other text.
50