Trying to get Claude Opus 5.5 to analyze a technical problem in population ethics, and immediately running into this. I assume it is because it finds the Conclusion Repugnant.
Announcing a Special Issue on "In-Situ Resource Utilization and Construction Technologies for Space Exploration."
Dear Colleagues,
I am co-editing a special issue on In-Situ Resource Utilization and Construction Technologies for Space Exploration to be published by MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) in both their Aerospace journal and their Astronautics journal. (Two journals will provide more visibility for your research.)
This Special Issue brings together the progress of leading researchers and technologists for in situ resource utilization and construction in space. In addition, it welcomes contributions of techno-economic, logistical, and/or operational analyses of these activities in space, papers reporting the progress in artificial intelligence needed to enable it, and relevant review papers. We welcome papers focused on the Moon, asteroids, Mars, or elsewhere in space.
The Aerospace Journal website for this special issue is here:
mdpi.com/journal/aerospace/s…
The Aerospace Journal website for it is here:
mdpi.com/journal/astronautic…
Please consider submitting a paper to this special issue!
Music video for "I am actually scared of linear algebra" animated by Claude Opus 5.5.
I'm sure this is partly the IKEA effect but I'm very happy with the result, love it!
Original song by Suno, Claude and @AndyMasley
Prompt below
I think a better approach is "follow the attention" and then dig into the ideas and arguments critically. Far too much engagement is about who belongs to what group, rather than what they actually say. Sometimes people try to say things about reality... and that can matter.
The closest I got to seeing this kind of messy dynamics was when I did an OPSEC seminar at FHI in 2017, noticing that as AI was becoming strategic we should be a bit concerned... but most focus was elsewhere.
"Follow the money" is often used instead of critical thinking about facts and ideas, as if seeing an organized interest behind something means it can now be discounted as mere propaganda.
One of my big kicking-myself-for-not-seeing-it-despite-claiming-to-be-a-futurist, is that of course once AI is big business or geopolitics, AI safety would be buffeted by interest groups.
I am a believer in the marketplace of ideas, but everything sells better with marketing!
So unfortunately, absent an enlightened disinterested debate about the topic aiming at generally agreeable compromises, we get this mess...
I think the correct ideas do tend to win out in the long run. But the long run can be very long indeed, and for some risks we may be all dead before convergence.
Anyway, one lesson is that hair tends to be abandoned when we want uniformity (usually in measurements), while it is retained when the goal is soft, compliant, non-marring low-mass contact.
OK, almost midnight and I have other rabbit holes to investigate. Ancient torsion artillery is for another day (in 250 BC Rhodes sent to Sinope about 3/4 of a ton of women's hair; in 225 BC Seleucus gave Rhodes a present of hair weighing 1000 talents)...