Orbital AI datacentres come with latency issues.
-
Orbital AI datacentres come with latency issues. If they're in LEO, they will have moderately low latency to a moving point on Earth, but for a fixed client the latency will increase as more relays are needed to account for curvature, so the jitter is high. If you put them in geostationary orbit, the latency is fixed, but large.
The solution to this is to put not just the AI datacentres, but also the AI bros in orbit. If you put an AI bro and a small radio in LEO, in the same orbital trajectory as an AI datacenter, they will have very low latency - indeed, significantly lower latency than ground-based routing if both they and the datacentre are on the ground.
Importantly, AI bros have a lot less mass than datacentres. As such, they are much cheaper to launch. As a pilot programme, to assess feasibility, I recommend launching a test constellation of AI bros into LEO. Note that, unlike datacentres, AI bros are made out of non-toxic (at least, in the chemical sense) substances. The environmental impact of uncontrolled atmospheric reentry is significantly lower, making the risk from the failure of a pilot deployment significantly lower.
@david_chisnall GEO isn't far enough. Stick them at like Sun-Earth L4 or L5. I don't think we're using that for anything right now anyway.
-
Orbital AI datacentres come with latency issues. If they're in LEO, they will have moderately low latency to a moving point on Earth, but for a fixed client the latency will increase as more relays are needed to account for curvature, so the jitter is high. If you put them in geostationary orbit, the latency is fixed, but large.
The solution to this is to put not just the AI datacentres, but also the AI bros in orbit. If you put an AI bro and a small radio in LEO, in the same orbital trajectory as an AI datacenter, they will have very low latency - indeed, significantly lower latency than ground-based routing if both they and the datacentre are on the ground.
Importantly, AI bros have a lot less mass than datacentres. As such, they are much cheaper to launch. As a pilot programme, to assess feasibility, I recommend launching a test constellation of AI bros into LEO. Note that, unlike datacentres, AI bros are made out of non-toxic (at least, in the chemical sense) substances. The environmental impact of uncontrolled atmospheric reentry is significantly lower, making the risk from the failure of a pilot deployment significantly lower.
this also solves the #ReflectOrbital issue
launch them into orbit, and a #techBro who wants to catch the Sun at odd times because "woah cool" vibing, they can catch the sun at 11 PM, 1 AM, 3AM... all sorts of unnatural times as they whizz around the Earth
rather than subjecting other people and the natural world to the stunt and messing with circadian rhythms
-
Orbital AI datacentres come with latency issues. If they're in LEO, they will have moderately low latency to a moving point on Earth, but for a fixed client the latency will increase as more relays are needed to account for curvature, so the jitter is high. If you put them in geostationary orbit, the latency is fixed, but large.
The solution to this is to put not just the AI datacentres, but also the AI bros in orbit. If you put an AI bro and a small radio in LEO, in the same orbital trajectory as an AI datacenter, they will have very low latency - indeed, significantly lower latency than ground-based routing if both they and the datacentre are on the ground.
Importantly, AI bros have a lot less mass than datacentres. As such, they are much cheaper to launch. As a pilot programme, to assess feasibility, I recommend launching a test constellation of AI bros into LEO. Note that, unlike datacentres, AI bros are made out of non-toxic (at least, in the chemical sense) substances. The environmental impact of uncontrolled atmospheric reentry is significantly lower, making the risk from the failure of a pilot deployment significantly lower.
@david_chisnall is that why they sent a car in space?
-
Orbital AI datacentres come with latency issues. If they're in LEO, they will have moderately low latency to a moving point on Earth, but for a fixed client the latency will increase as more relays are needed to account for curvature, so the jitter is high. If you put them in geostationary orbit, the latency is fixed, but large.
The solution to this is to put not just the AI datacentres, but also the AI bros in orbit. If you put an AI bro and a small radio in LEO, in the same orbital trajectory as an AI datacenter, they will have very low latency - indeed, significantly lower latency than ground-based routing if both they and the datacentre are on the ground.
Importantly, AI bros have a lot less mass than datacentres. As such, they are much cheaper to launch. As a pilot programme, to assess feasibility, I recommend launching a test constellation of AI bros into LEO. Note that, unlike datacentres, AI bros are made out of non-toxic (at least, in the chemical sense) substances. The environmental impact of uncontrolled atmospheric reentry is significantly lower, making the risk from the failure of a pilot deployment significantly lower.
@david_chisnall I’m not so sure, upon re-entry their boundless arrogance will be spread over a large area, potentially infecting millions
-
Orbital AI datacentres come with latency issues. If they're in LEO, they will have moderately low latency to a moving point on Earth, but for a fixed client the latency will increase as more relays are needed to account for curvature, so the jitter is high. If you put them in geostationary orbit, the latency is fixed, but large.
The solution to this is to put not just the AI datacentres, but also the AI bros in orbit. If you put an AI bro and a small radio in LEO, in the same orbital trajectory as an AI datacenter, they will have very low latency - indeed, significantly lower latency than ground-based routing if both they and the datacentre are on the ground.
Importantly, AI bros have a lot less mass than datacentres. As such, they are much cheaper to launch. As a pilot programme, to assess feasibility, I recommend launching a test constellation of AI bros into LEO. Note that, unlike datacentres, AI bros are made out of non-toxic (at least, in the chemical sense) substances. The environmental impact of uncontrolled atmospheric reentry is significantly lower, making the risk from the failure of a pilot deployment significantly lower.
@david_chisnall
Put them into a transfer or it to Pluto, but "accidentally" let them pass within gravity assist distance of Jupiter and Saturn. -
Orbital AI datacentres come with latency issues. If they're in LEO, they will have moderately low latency to a moving point on Earth, but for a fixed client the latency will increase as more relays are needed to account for curvature, so the jitter is high. If you put them in geostationary orbit, the latency is fixed, but large.
The solution to this is to put not just the AI datacentres, but also the AI bros in orbit. If you put an AI bro and a small radio in LEO, in the same orbital trajectory as an AI datacenter, they will have very low latency - indeed, significantly lower latency than ground-based routing if both they and the datacentre are on the ground.
Importantly, AI bros have a lot less mass than datacentres. As such, they are much cheaper to launch. As a pilot programme, to assess feasibility, I recommend launching a test constellation of AI bros into LEO. Note that, unlike datacentres, AI bros are made out of non-toxic (at least, in the chemical sense) substances. The environmental impact of uncontrolled atmospheric reentry is significantly lower, making the risk from the failure of a pilot deployment significantly lower.
@david_chisnall You can also save money on cooling - since AI-bros can not ever be cool, there's no point in even trying.
-
Orbital AI datacentres come with latency issues. If they're in LEO, they will have moderately low latency to a moving point on Earth, but for a fixed client the latency will increase as more relays are needed to account for curvature, so the jitter is high. If you put them in geostationary orbit, the latency is fixed, but large.
The solution to this is to put not just the AI datacentres, but also the AI bros in orbit. If you put an AI bro and a small radio in LEO, in the same orbital trajectory as an AI datacenter, they will have very low latency - indeed, significantly lower latency than ground-based routing if both they and the datacentre are on the ground.
Importantly, AI bros have a lot less mass than datacentres. As such, they are much cheaper to launch. As a pilot programme, to assess feasibility, I recommend launching a test constellation of AI bros into LEO. Note that, unlike datacentres, AI bros are made out of non-toxic (at least, in the chemical sense) substances. The environmental impact of uncontrolled atmospheric reentry is significantly lower, making the risk from the failure of a pilot deployment significantly lower.
@david_chisnall funny, I just read this paper last week https://arxiv.org/html/2607.14172v1 where I was slightly horrified to learn that "LEO satellites are designed for a lifetime of about 5 years. End-of-life implies reentry into earth’s atmosphere. The best possible outcome of such reentry is total vaporization."
And so they did not consider... "The costs related to the impact on the earth ozone layer resulting from the reentry of millions of tons of aluminium into earth’s atmosphere, each year"
-
@david_chisnall Also, if they're in LEO one side of them is being baked by the sun for half of each orbital period—and a big-ass reflector on the other side (the Earth). For decent cooling to be possible they really need to be out beyond GEO: see also Skylab, and why they installed the emergency sun shield (it hit 70°C inside after they lost one of the solar panels during the launch, if memory serves).
@cstross @david_chisnall but think about interference from other electromagnetic waves on earth and solar flares. Wouldn't it be much better to send them to orbit Jupiter?
-
@cstross @david_chisnall but think about interference from other electromagnetic waves on earth and solar flares. Wouldn't it be much better to send them to orbit Jupiter?
@qwazix @david_chisnall You're joking, right? You *do* know about Jupiter's radiation belts?
-
Orbital AI datacentres come with latency issues. If they're in LEO, they will have moderately low latency to a moving point on Earth, but for a fixed client the latency will increase as more relays are needed to account for curvature, so the jitter is high. If you put them in geostationary orbit, the latency is fixed, but large.
The solution to this is to put not just the AI datacentres, but also the AI bros in orbit. If you put an AI bro and a small radio in LEO, in the same orbital trajectory as an AI datacenter, they will have very low latency - indeed, significantly lower latency than ground-based routing if both they and the datacentre are on the ground.
Importantly, AI bros have a lot less mass than datacentres. As such, they are much cheaper to launch. As a pilot programme, to assess feasibility, I recommend launching a test constellation of AI bros into LEO. Note that, unlike datacentres, AI bros are made out of non-toxic (at least, in the chemical sense) substances. The environmental impact of uncontrolled atmospheric reentry is significantly lower, making the risk from the failure of a pilot deployment significantly lower.
@david_chisnall I worry sometimes about over-boosting but everybody needs to know about this innovative solution
-
Orbital AI datacentres come with latency issues. If they're in LEO, they will have moderately low latency to a moving point on Earth, but for a fixed client the latency will increase as more relays are needed to account for curvature, so the jitter is high. If you put them in geostationary orbit, the latency is fixed, but large.
The solution to this is to put not just the AI datacentres, but also the AI bros in orbit. If you put an AI bro and a small radio in LEO, in the same orbital trajectory as an AI datacenter, they will have very low latency - indeed, significantly lower latency than ground-based routing if both they and the datacentre are on the ground.
Importantly, AI bros have a lot less mass than datacentres. As such, they are much cheaper to launch. As a pilot programme, to assess feasibility, I recommend launching a test constellation of AI bros into LEO. Note that, unlike datacentres, AI bros are made out of non-toxic (at least, in the chemical sense) substances. The environmental impact of uncontrolled atmospheric reentry is significantly lower, making the risk from the failure of a pilot deployment significantly lower.
@david_chisnall @simon_brooke we could have many experiments into the Minimum Viable Propulsion (MVP) to get a tech bro into LEO
-
@TallSimon @david_chisnall
Good thoughts, but remember that the AI bros are expendable.Preferably.
(And launching the AI bros is a brilliant thought, I wish I'd thought of that!)
@dougmerritt @TallSimon @david_chisnall It's not a preference, it's the law.
-
@qwazix @david_chisnall You're joking, right? You *do* know about Jupiter's radiation belts?
@cstross @david_chisnall I don't, but it's a feature, not a bug.
(If they object, I'll tell them I asked the AI)
-
Orbital AI datacentres come with latency issues. If they're in LEO, they will have moderately low latency to a moving point on Earth, but for a fixed client the latency will increase as more relays are needed to account for curvature, so the jitter is high. If you put them in geostationary orbit, the latency is fixed, but large.
The solution to this is to put not just the AI datacentres, but also the AI bros in orbit. If you put an AI bro and a small radio in LEO, in the same orbital trajectory as an AI datacenter, they will have very low latency - indeed, significantly lower latency than ground-based routing if both they and the datacentre are on the ground.
Importantly, AI bros have a lot less mass than datacentres. As such, they are much cheaper to launch. As a pilot programme, to assess feasibility, I recommend launching a test constellation of AI bros into LEO. Note that, unlike datacentres, AI bros are made out of non-toxic (at least, in the chemical sense) substances. The environmental impact of uncontrolled atmospheric reentry is significantly lower, making the risk from the failure of a pilot deployment significantly lower.
@david_chisnall tech bros always want to be the fastest and brag about withstanding highs and lows, so I would suggest launching them to a Molniya orbit.
-
I keep hoping a massive asteroid will hit the Bay Area, hopefully down there at the south end with all those useless fucks in Santa Clara.
Wham. That asteroid would take out millions of people and wouldn't kill one honest person.
@tuban_muzuru @david_chisnall I like your attitude, but unfortunately the last sentence isn't true.
We need something like a neutron bomb, except all it destroys is bullshit. That would take out the creeps and leave the decent folk.
-
Orbital AI datacentres come with latency issues. If they're in LEO, they will have moderately low latency to a moving point on Earth, but for a fixed client the latency will increase as more relays are needed to account for curvature, so the jitter is high. If you put them in geostationary orbit, the latency is fixed, but large.
The solution to this is to put not just the AI datacentres, but also the AI bros in orbit. If you put an AI bro and a small radio in LEO, in the same orbital trajectory as an AI datacenter, they will have very low latency - indeed, significantly lower latency than ground-based routing if both they and the datacentre are on the ground.
Importantly, AI bros have a lot less mass than datacentres. As such, they are much cheaper to launch. As a pilot programme, to assess feasibility, I recommend launching a test constellation of AI bros into LEO. Note that, unlike datacentres, AI bros are made out of non-toxic (at least, in the chemical sense) substances. The environmental impact of uncontrolled atmospheric reentry is significantly lower, making the risk from the failure of a pilot deployment significantly lower.
Uncontrolled reenty? Nah targeted reentry, AI Bros from God orbital weapons system. If they really want to take out those Chinese open models. Here just hold tight to this tungsten rod....
-
@david_chisnall You can also save money on cooling - since AI-bros can not ever be cool, there's no point in even trying.
Excellent point
-
Orbital AI datacentres come with latency issues. If they're in LEO, they will have moderately low latency to a moving point on Earth, but for a fixed client the latency will increase as more relays are needed to account for curvature, so the jitter is high. If you put them in geostationary orbit, the latency is fixed, but large.
The solution to this is to put not just the AI datacentres, but also the AI bros in orbit. If you put an AI bro and a small radio in LEO, in the same orbital trajectory as an AI datacenter, they will have very low latency - indeed, significantly lower latency than ground-based routing if both they and the datacentre are on the ground.
Importantly, AI bros have a lot less mass than datacentres. As such, they are much cheaper to launch. As a pilot programme, to assess feasibility, I recommend launching a test constellation of AI bros into LEO. Note that, unlike datacentres, AI bros are made out of non-toxic (at least, in the chemical sense) substances. The environmental impact of uncontrolled atmospheric reentry is significantly lower, making the risk from the failure of a pilot deployment significantly lower.
@david_chisnall There are no advantages, at all, whatsoever, to trying to house a datacentre in orbit. Sure you could put a low-latency server up there, like a game server, but it still has to be LEO to have a low enough ping, which means it has to move, which means it has to have hand-off ... all without terrestrial support networks available.
-
Orbital AI datacentres come with latency issues. If they're in LEO, they will have moderately low latency to a moving point on Earth, but for a fixed client the latency will increase as more relays are needed to account for curvature, so the jitter is high. If you put them in geostationary orbit, the latency is fixed, but large.
The solution to this is to put not just the AI datacentres, but also the AI bros in orbit. If you put an AI bro and a small radio in LEO, in the same orbital trajectory as an AI datacenter, they will have very low latency - indeed, significantly lower latency than ground-based routing if both they and the datacentre are on the ground.
Importantly, AI bros have a lot less mass than datacentres. As such, they are much cheaper to launch. As a pilot programme, to assess feasibility, I recommend launching a test constellation of AI bros into LEO. Note that, unlike datacentres, AI bros are made out of non-toxic (at least, in the chemical sense) substances. The environmental impact of uncontrolled atmospheric reentry is significantly lower, making the risk from the failure of a pilot deployment significantly lower.
-
Orbital AI datacentres come with latency issues. If they're in LEO, they will have moderately low latency to a moving point on Earth, but for a fixed client the latency will increase as more relays are needed to account for curvature, so the jitter is high. If you put them in geostationary orbit, the latency is fixed, but large.
The solution to this is to put not just the AI datacentres, but also the AI bros in orbit. If you put an AI bro and a small radio in LEO, in the same orbital trajectory as an AI datacenter, they will have very low latency - indeed, significantly lower latency than ground-based routing if both they and the datacentre are on the ground.
Importantly, AI bros have a lot less mass than datacentres. As such, they are much cheaper to launch. As a pilot programme, to assess feasibility, I recommend launching a test constellation of AI bros into LEO. Note that, unlike datacentres, AI bros are made out of non-toxic (at least, in the chemical sense) substances. The environmental impact of uncontrolled atmospheric reentry is significantly lower, making the risk from the failure of a pilot deployment significantly lower.
@david_chisnall Any pre-mature ... uhm ... re-entry in this case would also be a win-win.
