This is completely not true if you use AWS Bedrock, and applies to both your private that or in a business context. Its one of their core arguments for the service use.

[1] - "...At Amazon, we don’t use your prompts and outputs to train or improve the underlying models in Amazon Bedrock and SageMaker JumpStart (including those from third parties), and humans won’t review them. Also, we don’t share your data with third-party model providers. Your data remains private to you within your AWS accounts..."

[1] - https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/securing-generative-ai...

Here is the thing nobody wants to say out loud or they are too dumb to realize. AI is intelligence, and intelligence has almost never been the binding constraint on productivity.

So you will get no productivity increase from the AI bubble. Yes, you read that correctly.

The test is simple, if raw brainpower were the bottleneck, you could 10x any company by hiring 200 PhDs. In practice you get 200 brilliant people writing unread memos, refactoring things that worked, and forming a committee to rename the committee. Smart has always been cheaper and more abundant than the discourse pretends.

Every real productivity revolution came from somewhere else like energy (steam, electricity), capital stock (machines that do the physical work), or coordination (railroads, shipping containers, the assembly line, the internet).

None of these raised the average IQ of the workforce, they changed what a given worker could move, reach, or coordinate with. Solow old line basically still holds. The output per worker grows when you give the worker better tools and infrastructure, not better neurons.

Meanwhile the actual bottlenecks in a modern firm are regulatory approval, legacy systems, procurement cycles, customer adoption, internal politics, and physical supply chains that don't care how clever your email was. A smart brains intern at every desk produces more artifacts, not more throughput, and in a lot of organizations, more artifacts is actively negative ROI.

Jevons does not save you either, cheaper cognition mostly means more slide decks, not more GDP.

So the setup is that models are commoditizing on one side, and on the other side a product whose core value add (more intelligence, faster) is aimed at a constraint that was never really binding. This of course a rough combo for a trillion dollar capex supercycle.

Fun for the trade, while it lasts, but there is no thesis. Just dont tell CNBC and short NVDA on time ,-)

"CEO of Palantir, described people killed in the Gaza Genocide as “useful idiots”"

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1sp4rpd/ale...

"12% of corporate leaders are psychopaths. It’s time to take this problem seriously"

https://fortune.com/2021/06/06/corporate-psychopaths-busines...

And Musk well its a whole classification on its own...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk_salute_controversy

https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musk-sued-by-british-dive...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/these-federal-employee...

https://www.timesofisrael.com/musk-endorses-tweet-claiming-j...

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47839285

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

"CEO of Palantir, described people killed in the Gaza Genocide as “useful idiots”"

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1sp4rpd/ale...

"12% of corporate leaders are psychopaths. It’s time to take this problem seriously"

https://fortune.com/2021/06/06/corporate-psychopaths-busines...

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/mL796eqCQko

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47828791

Points: 12

# Comments: 5

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7589524/

Without the benefit of large special effects budgets, I found it incredibly effective, and left me nostalgic and reflective for days.

Of course, I would like to note, you have just spent 20 times the NASA annual budget, in a 3 week war of choice...

This is just anecdote, colliding with documented database behavior, who is not an issue on Oracle, SQL Server, or IBM DB2.

PostgreSQL explicitly documents xid wraparound as a failure mode that can lead to catastrophic data loss and says vacuuming is required to prevent it. Near exhaustion, it will refuse commands.

Small sample of known outages:

- Sentry — Transaction ID Wraparound in Postgres

https://blog.sentry.io/transaction-id-wraparound-in-postgres...

Mailchimp / Mandrill — What We Learned from the Recent Mandrill Outage

https://mailchimp.com/what-we-learned-from-the-recent-mandri...

Joyent / Manta — Challenges deploying PostgreSQL (9.2) for high availability

https://www.davepacheco.net/blog/2024/challenges-deploying-p...

BattleMetrics — March 27, 2022 Postgres Transacton ID Wraparound

https://learn.battlemetrics.com/article/64-march-27-2022-pos...

Duffel — concurrency control & vacuuming in PostgreSQL

https://duffel.com/blog/understanding-outage-concurrency-vac...

Figma — Postmortem: Service disruption on January 21–22, 2020

https://www.figma.com/blog/post-mortem-service-disruption-on...

Even AWS updated their recommendation as recently as Feb 2025, and is an issue in Aurora Postgres as well as Postgres.

"Prevent transaction ID wraparound by using postgres_get_av_diag() for monitoring autovacuum" https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/database/prevent-transaction-id...

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47816024

Points: 45

# Comments: 7

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47807800

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47807690

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47767588

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

   - Mike Johnson

You claim the Artemis II review convinced skeptical experts.What actually happened was Isaacman ( or shoud I say Jared? ) convened a January meeting to present NASA rationale for flying a heat shield they already knew was flawed.

CNN was denied access, only two journalists were invited, largely off the record. Isaacman own words afterward, that the meeting "only reaffirmed my confidence", tell you the conclusion preceded the review and show a level of manipulative representation, that hint he will go far in the current administration.

The most qualified skeptic in the room, Charlie Camarda, a former NASA astronaut, heat shield research engineer, and member of the first shuttle crew to fly after Columbia, walked out unconvinced. He said NASA "definitely does not have the data to show that it's safe" and that the agency was using "the same flawed thinking and crude analysis tools, similar to Columbia, similar to Challenger." He wrote an open letter to Isaacman warning that this "exhibits the same patterns that preceded past catastrophes." He estimated 1-in-20 odds of disaster. Danny Olivas was a man on the payroll, Charlie Camarda no.

On Polaris Dawn you say Isaacman, did the same tests and reported results just like the spacesuit engineer. You are making my point for me. The spacesuit engineer was Sarah Gillis, a Lead Space Operations Engineer at SpaceX who spent 11 years training astronauts, including the NASA crews for Demo-2 and Crew-1. She was there because she helped build and develop what was being tested. Isaacman was there because he paid for the mission.

Following test procedures that SpaceX engineers wrote, on hardware SpaceX engineers designed, inside a spacecraft SpaceX engineers built, does not make you an engineer. It makes you a test subject with a checkbook. A patient in a clinical drug trial also "does the same tests and reports results" as the researchers but that does not qualify them to run the FDA.

Which brings us to the question you seem to have avoided.

Why was Isaacman selected as NASA Administrator? He is the CEO of Shift4 Payments, which has a five year global payment processing deal with SpaceX's Starlink.

He has no aerospace engineering background, no government management experience, no science credentials. During his confirmation hearing, when Senator Markey asked about his ties to Musk, Isaacman claimed they were not close :-)) and that he had not discussed his NASA plans with Musk...

But when Markey asked whether Musk was present at his interview with Trump, a simple yes or no question... Isaacman refused to answer.

A payments CEO with financial ties to SpaceX, nominated by a president who received hundreds of millions from Musk, who can't say whether Musk was in the room when he got the job... If you don't see the problem, you either are not looking or dont want to look.