• scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2年前

      Modern nuclear reactors are designed to fail safely, so Windows couldn’t actually create a Chernobyl. Everything wrong with nuclear in our world is with old-gen plants. It’s a technology that got ahead of itself by 50 years.

      • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        2年前

        Yeah, there’s very little information in the article on what type of reactor they plan to use, but I hope they’re able to go with something like a molten salt reactor with a thorium fuel cycle.

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2年前

          Getting half a dozen of those built and in use would be exactly the kind of thing that tech billionaires are actually good for.

          • prole@sh.itjust.works
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2年前

            Fuck that. Take all the government grants and subsidies that would surely exist, and then use it for their own good/profit/power hoarding? No thanks.

            Putting billionaires in control of our nuclear power infrastructure after “building” them with mostly taxpayer money, when it’s all said and done, is an absolutely bone chilling thought. Terrifying.

            • scarabic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2年前

              I don’t know why you think government subsidies exist - so impoverished single moms can build power plants? No. They’re pork for billionaires by design, to get them off their asses and steer them into directions we want to go. Like venture capital, they are also high risk. Our federal budget can support some level of this and it’s frankly needed to drive change in new or stalled industries where the motive for immediate profit isn’t strong enough to overcome the cold start problem. If your hatred of billionaires keeps you from making smart energy choices to address climate change, then your priorities are wrong.

        • bemenaker@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2年前

          The picture they show is from terrapower, the company Bill Gates funded, which is a thorium reactor. Thorium liquid salt reactors are still difficult because of the metallurgy. I believe they were supposed to fit the small modular concept though.

    • Godort@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2年前

      They’ll probably not use Windows, instead opting for an OS that is proven to work with already running reactors, like QNX

    • 9point6@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2年前

      A lot of them do IIRC, windows 98 is popping into my mind as an instance I’ve read of

    • Rakonat@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2年前

      Could be worse, could be running MacOS. Surely nothing bad can happen while the entire system freezes for no reason for 15 minutes or more without any possible input from the user. It will always fix it self… (hopefully before the reactor achieves a run away meltdown chain.)

    • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2年前

      Reminds me of that time the technodork ran his minecraft reactor with opencomputers and lost his base because the computer blue screened. Almost as funny as that time the entire city lit up because they were using raw radio signals to control their reactor and a nearby thunderstrike instructed the reactor to drop all the fuel and go supercritical. This is why you add realism to video games, it leads to hilarious stuff like this.

      EDIT: That was actually the same server where they sabotaged the entire electrical grid to blow up everyone’s base as a send-off and mine was the only one standing at the end because I was the only one who bothered to set up a surge protector under OHSA (Omega Haxors? Safety!? AHAHAHAH!) it just so happened that the system designed to save the grid from my many exploits just so happened to work in reverse.

  • ascense@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    156
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2年前

    A corporation running a nuclear reactor to train AIs might just be the most cyberpunk news headline I’ve ever seen.

  • qaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    145
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2年前

    Better than coal or oil, it might even result in more R&D into reactor designs.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      edit-2
      2年前

      There’s no shortage of modern reactor designs. We have amazing stuff designed and even prototyped and proven - low waste, safely-failing reactors that basically can’t melt down. All we really lack is funding and regulatory clearance to build more.

          • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2年前

            It is, because corporate greenwashing will tell you that they reduced their emissions when all they did was scale up production using green energy. Their actual emissions didn’t go down they just went down relative to their growth.

            • qaz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2年前

              I thought this was a generic nuclear bad response, but in that case I definitely agree.

  • negativeyoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    129
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    2年前

    I thought this crazy energy consumption shit would cool off a bit after assholes stopped bitcoin mining.

    Glad AI stepped up so we can generate bad art and prose while buttfucking the planet

    • El Barto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2年前

      The planet will be alright. It will be lush green in a few million years when humans no longer exist.

      The current ecosystem, though… yeah. Buttfucked.

    • jarfil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2年前

      Ok, hear me out: crypto, based on “proof of training an AI”

      If it takes so much power, it must be secure, and this way it wouldn’t be “totally wasted”…

      • Luctia@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2年前

        I’m not sure if you’re serious, but just in case: that wouldn’t work, mining is really just verifying transactions. So if you’re not doing that, you may earn crypto by “mining”, but you can’t spend it because no-one is verifying your transactions.

        • jarfil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2年前

          mining is really just verifying transactions

          Not correct.

          Mining is a “proof of work”, in the case of Bitcoin it’s competing to be the first to find a hash that meets certain parameters (difficulty), for a block referencing the previous top one. Whether the new block has transactions in it or not, you get the same reward for being the first one to find and broadcast it.

          Verifying is done by every node in the P2P network, both when deciding whether to relay candidate transactions, and when checking whether a new block’s hash meets the mining requirements.

          The Bitcoin blockchain has plenty of valid blocks with no transactions in them (part of a speculative mining strategy used by some to get the block reward faster than others).

          The whole scheme works the same with any other kind of “proof of work”, as long as the nodes relaying the new block can check whether the work happened or not (there are many ways in which that could be accomplished for AI training, the easiest of them by publishing the new model and having nodes check whether it meets some quality parameters).

          • Luctia@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2年前

            I mean, yeah. I knew most of that, but I just wanted to keep it short and simple.

            I don’t really understand how it would work with AI training. If your computers are working on training AI instead of finding blocks, I don’t see how you can support transactions. Just sounds like distributed computing with rewards to me, where you might be able to cash out at some central portal or smth, but you can’t send other people that money directly (at least not over a blockchain, but would be possible vis that portal maybe, although, again, that wouldn’t be a blockchain).

            • devils_advocate@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              2年前

              Proof of work need not be useless. E.g. https://primecoin.io/

              The tricky bit is finding a problem that is hard to solve but easy to verify. I’m not sure AI tasks fall into that category.

              The transaction verification is separate to the work.

              • jarfil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2年前

                The tricky bit is finding a problem that is hard to solve but easy to verify. I’m not sure AI tasks fall into that category.

                They actually do. Training an AI involves changing some values in the model in an attempt for it to better fit an optimization function. It takes many tries to find a set of values that perform better, but a single try to confirm it does.

                Both sides require much more computing power than for a single hash, but the difficulty imbalance is still there, and verifiers could change “how much better fit” the next model needs to be, just like they do by changing difficulty requirements right now.

                • devils_advocate@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2年前

                  True. The next iteration doesn’t need to be optimal, just an improvement in the loss function.

                  Not sure how they would decide when to stop.

            • jarfil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2年前

              training AI instead of finding blocks

              There is no “finding blocks” in Bitcoin, it isn’t Minecraft. Miners work on “finding a better hash”, for whatever block they want to propose. The two actions, creating a block, and working on finding a hash, are separate.

              In a “proof of training an AI” blockchain, there would still be a hash linking one block to the previous one, just the proof for accepting a new block would no longer be looking for another (useless) hash.

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2年前

      Cryptocoins, blockchain, NFTs, AI craze. It’s all the same people who think that the solution to the problems that capitalism has created is technology.

  • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2年前

    requires an intensive carbon footprint

    Maybe we should focus on the collapsing ecosystem then instead of training AI datasets.

        • Stuka@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2年前

          Ok, find someone willing to pay for one for that purpose.

          Microsoft isn’t ‘we’

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          2年前

          You’re free to invest in nuclear power for that purpose if you want.

          Microsoft is investing in nuclear power to run their AI projects. They likely wouldn’t be investing in nuclear power if they didn’t have projects that needed it like this.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2年前

            And the U.S. government wouldn’t have invested in all of the development that went into the Apollo program if they didn’t want to beat the Russians, but we still all benefitted from the science and the research and the development.

  • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2年前

    We already know how well Microsoft optimizes code, so this comes as no surprise.

    • UFO@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2年前

      Yea this entire clickbait can be summarized as “company looks to spend less on high capacity power”

    • monobot@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2年前

      And you just need to find good non science fiction way to deal with nuclear waste.

      And some ethical ways of aquiring uranium.

      With all that calculated in, I am certain how much cheaper it is.

  • Havald@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2年前

    Building and maintaining one isn’t really the concern I have with this one, nuclear reactors are incredibly safe these days. What are they going to do with the nuclear waste? That’s the real issue here. Governments can barely figure that out, how’s a megacorp going to do that in an ethical way? I already see them dumping it in a cave in some poor country in africa.

    • Silverseren@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2年前

      If they’re actually using a new type nuclear reactor, the small portable ones, then the waste is both incredibly small and recyclable. Nuclear technology has come a long way since the decades old reactors, we just haven’t built very many new ones to showcase that.

      • Nilz@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2年前

        It’s a shame we aren’t seemingly taking them into consideration in the whole energy transition crisis we are in.

        But rather let’s just keep sending people into hazardous coal mines while ignoring nuclear energy until the solution to all our problems magically comes to us.

        • Richard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2年前

          What do you mean by this, nuclear of all things is supposed to be the solution? Maybe fusion some day, but definitely not fission. But that’s fine, because we already have a perfectly capable and renewable solution, and that is called wind and solar. The sun is doing fusion every day for us and irradiates the surface of the Earth so much that we could support many multiples of our civilisation.

          • Nilz@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2年前

            I’m not trying to say nuclear is the definitive solution, but it’s certainly a step in the right direction. Progress is progress, we don’t have to find the final solution in one go.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2年前

      How much nuclear waste are we talking about? Every time I’ve seen any actual quantity mentioned, it’s tiny.

    • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2年前

      As noted elsewhere, these don’t create the same kind of spent fuel as a PWR. So that helps.

      But also, the people who designed the PWRs didn’t just say “and then we’ll make shitloads of unmanageable waste lol!” Up until the Carter Administration, we ran a system called “reprocessing” that essentially shredded and dissolved the old fuel rods, isolated the metals chemically, and packed out separately.

      France does this. Finland does this. Japan does this. Their waste concerns are negligible compared to ours.

      Meanwhile Carter, bless his heart, determined that reprocessing was a proliferation risk, and shut down the US industry, saying “y’all will figure out a way to dispose of these things”.

      So now we are using circular saws to hack these things apart, cramming them into barrels stuffed with kitty litter (you read that right), and hoping that nothing will happen to the barrels for 50 million years?

      Long-term waste disposal became an impossible problem to solve in the US because our one and only allegedly nuclear-savvy president made the solution to the problem illegal. It became one immediately, and has never stopped being one.

    • wahming@monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2年前

      Weird thing is, I’d trust them to not abandon the reactor during a budget shutdown…

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2年前

      I mean you say that as if just burying it isn’t actually the proven safest option.

      Startups are already beginning to explore using old oil drilling equipment to sink nuclear waste below where it’ll pose a threat, after it’s been suffused into a shitton of concrete of course.

      Very rarely is nuclear waste of the corium toothpaste variety, more often it’s the old hazmat suits that are getting replaced and need to be disposed of with special care, or expired rods you can still have limited contact with without many issues.

    • Chailles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2年前

      Governments can barely figure that out,

      Governments aren’t exactly known for efficiency. A corporation is less likely to bogged down by just the mere fallacy that “other entities can’t figure it out, why should they do it?”

    • Richard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2年前

      Right, let’s welcome throwing millions or billions of dollars at wasting enormous quantities of concrete and water and at generating highly toxic waste that will irradiate its environment for millennia, and at ripping apart landscapes to extract uranium, I mean that’s such a nice thing, we need much more of it! It’s not like we already have perfectly renewable solutions to providing power…

  • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2年前

    The human body produces a lot of electrical impulses. What if they just took all their workers and put them in some type of “work pod” and harnessed the energy to run the large scale AI?

  • sixCats@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2年前

    This seems kind of ideal though, computers provide a near constant load (relatively speaking) that combines very well with nuclear energy.

    Perhaps we should be asking why we haven’t already been doing this for the past decade?

    • Acters@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2年前

      Because it costs less money to push the cost to for taxpayers to subsidize it than owning it

      Correction

    • realharo@lemm.ee
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2年前

      This may actually be one of those things where it turns out to be worth it (for them anyway), if they can get some major technological advancements out of it.

      There are so many other things in the world that are way more wasteful and way more pointless.

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        2年前

        Or you get an overlord ai that isn’t dependent on the larger power grid so it doesn’t have any reason not to launch the nukes. You know they’re going to harden these things.

        • prole@sh.itjust.works
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2年前

          This comment was a joke right? “Launch the nukes”? What nukes?!? Do you not know the difference between nuclear power generation and nuclear bombs?

          • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2年前

            Yes. It’s just a joke about Skynet and AM. People are really quick to jump to dogpile without realizing it’s a joke. The idea wasn’t that it would use its reactor as a weapon, but it would access the military’s weapons. Without needing outside power, it have no reason not to.

    • Pipoca@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2年前

      Allocative efficiency in economics just means that you can’t make someone better off without making someone else worse off.

      An efficient allocation isn’t necessarily equitable.

      And the first welfare theorem of economics only claims that the market will produce an allocatively efficient result if its complete, in perfect competition, and everyone has complete information. Which has the obvious problems of those preconditions not matching reality.

  • Pxtl@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2年前

    I predict that within 10 years, computers will be twice as powerful, ten thousand times larger, and so expensive that only the 5 richest kings of Europe will own them

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2年前

    with the hopes of buying electricity from it as soon as 2028.

    Fusion won’t be ready by then

    Energy should be public