My charitable reading of GP's point is that the bottleneck for true compute sovereignty is the chips, not the models.

"The government should have the power to block or deter deployment of the model if it is determined, in light of third-party assessment, to present unacceptable risks. This power must be scoped to the above four specific risks and there must be protective measures against political favoritism or arbitrary decisions."

The article uses this as a gotcha, but I think there is nuance here. Amazon is a competitor, not an officially appointed third-party that can assess anything. And while Amodei says government oversight is needed, I think it's fair to say we would all expect something more rigorous and neutral than getting a phone call on a Friday based on vibes.

[1] https://isochronic-passage-chart.netlify.app/

[2] https://mapitout.welcome-to-nl.nl/

[3] https://commutetimemap.com/

[4] https://andrewding.ca/flightisochrones/

1) You forgot to include the actual costs of the GPUs and other equipment, you are just calculating launch costs which will always come on top of the other stuff

2) Datacenters require repairs and hands-on attention, and space provides extra challenges like radiation to deal with

3) They have not provided any evidence that they can solve the heat diffusion issue, which could kill the whole project

4) Musk's track record for outlandish tech is poor (hyperloop, fully autonomous driving, Mars trips, etc. were significantly delayed or not achieved yet), and unlike some of these other things no one else seems to think this is economically feasible

Note that I am not shitting on the idea of option 1 at all, in fact personally I would very much like to see it succeed. I just think this is more of a global issue than a local one.