• Telorand@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    There is something wrong with your tech if you need your own nuclear plant to run it.

    I mean, it’s better than coal, but still.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I’m all right with it really because it doesn’t really matter. Radioactive material isn’t really dangerous at least in any sensible context and it doesn’t really put out a lot of carbon so if Microsoft want to restart nuclear power station then I don’t really have any objection.

      As to whether they need to be doing this is another question, but the fact that they’re doing it at all doesn’t really bother me.

      There’s always the outside possibility that they decide that the nuclear power station isn’t enough and end up building a Dyson Sphere or something.

      • Telorand@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think it’s the responsible thing to do, sure, but I feel like there’s a problem of scalability with LLMs. That was more of my point.

        • iopq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          It used to take a computer with a ton of ptocessors to beat the best human. Now your phone can do it. When your most common tasks can be done on a phone NPU, and fewer GPUs need to be in the cloud it will get more efficient

      • iopq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        It puts out literally zero carbon. Once you build a nuclear plant it’s 100% green after the construction

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Well it does put out some carbon because the extraction and refining processes are not carbon zero, but there are considerably less than coal or gas.

  • tourist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m not scared of nuclear power

    but hearing it in the same sentence as ‘Microsoft AI’ sent a shiver down my spine

    • passivelnk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Like in Westworld, the Hoover Dam was allocated to power the AI. This is very dystopian on one level but on another level, the notion that so muchreal engineering is being used to feed a computer that generates incorrect bullshit is kinda comical.

  • TCB13@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    So… now nuclear is considered “green power”. Okay boomers.

      • OmanMkII@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Even with the radioactive waste material, in 20 years that will just be more fuel for fission reactors. Even taking into account the deaths from atomic bombs, the death rate from nuclear materials is a factor of a few hundred lower than coal power.

        • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Nuclear is even less killy than hydroelectric (dams sometimes burst and drown a bunch of people downriver) and wind (sometimes technicians fall off when fixing a turbine) per kilowatt hour, despite the potential for really scary failures, largely because it generates so much power when it’s working.