That’s true and the opposite of abuse is not non use but right use. My only caveat is that AI has a lot of power either way and as the saying goes with great power comes great responsibility. I’m not convinced governments have properly addressed this before allowing AI loose. If you want to buy a knife in the uk, there are restrictions and there are also restrictions in how you use it. You cannot just walk around in public with it.
I’d like to see some discussion that addresses AI’s consequences. Especially in terms of its environmental impact and maladaption. I’ve seen no real kickback against AI’s accelerated consumption of limited resources and significant negative contribution to climate change. Nor any discussion on its maladaption. Especially from governments who are supposed to be responsible. After all this push about carbon net zero, reducing the global temperature, and needing to be responsible citizens, it’s all gone out the window with AI and no government is taking any responsibility. It appears everyone is so obsessed that they’re not thinking straight. We might learn from the history of Oppenheimer otherwise we might end up repeating it.
Correction “the theme the world is following right now” should be “the theme America is following right now”. Where I live there has been absolutely no change in people’s perception of climate change, in fact people are more concerned with the current weather patterns about global warming that any other time in the past. The damage AI is doing to the environment is all over the press here; people are extremely concerned.
My country has banned nuclear power by 2035, and in the last 5 years solar farms have been springing up everywhere - the green energy revolution never paused for us. It’s only from the US that we hear about climate/science denial and pausing the decommissioning of coal power stations to keep up with demand.
My country has been nuclear free in all forms since 1987. Never had nuclear power, and don’t even let nuclear powered vessels in our waters. We have >90% of our electricity generated by renewables (mostly hyrdo but increasing wind).
But… today’s government are rolling back all sorts of environmental protections.
That’s just two countries’ situations. Yours and mine. There are many, many others all over this spectrum.
AFAIK most projects, in the US, that has replaced coal with wind or solar has also added a natural gas plant to handle base load. What do they do in your country?
HYDRO. Then Hydro. Then a little bit of geothermal, and a small amount of everything else. I live near a decently sized hydro station - 25% the production of the Hoover dam and it’s only vaguely noteworthy because it’s also historic. Our largest one apparently produces 150% of the Hoover dam’s output in a year.
I think there is a lot of misrepresentation of nuclear power. It is one of the cleanest energy sources there is. Both wind and solar have major recycling issues. Plus solar takes a phenomenal amount of space and wind turbines are a hazard for wildlife. Hydro is a very good energy source but its environmental impact depends on where the dams are built.
Couldn’t agree more, it baffles me that people are so against nuclear.
In terms of deaths as safe as wind / solar and much safer than fossil fuels.
See Nuclear Energy | Our World in Data
A very valuable thing I learnt from having to take part in civil defence exercises (many years ago) is that risk isn’t simple. You can’t just say that x is safer than y. You have to consider how x and y might cause problems, how likely such problems are to occur, how severe the consequences might be, how many people or what area will be affected and for how long and what realistic response might be made. And you always, always have to remember that the unthinkable and unimaginable have happened, and almost certainly will happen in future, and in ways that no-one predicted.
It’s similar for costs and benefits - it’s very hard to recognise, let alone quantify, ALL the costs and ALL the benefits of a decision. It’s almost always how the costs and benefits impact the proposer and in the short term.
And while I’m being pedantic. You have to consider HOW things are done. e.g. solar generation installed on roofs of existing houses and batteries in back yards can make a substantial impact on a national level, without taking up a lot of space, or having a significant local impact. Major solar farms are different, but may be more efficient.
Depending of course on where you live. It would not work in the uk and the cost of finding lithium, cobalt and nickel every 10 years to replace the batteries would be untenable and create major negative environmental impact as would the recycling of solar panels every 30 years in that quantity. Plus the cost of infrastructure change and the fact that outside of May-Oct 90% of energy generation is lost, meaning other energy sources are needed.
This is true, but one doesn’t need to attack a nuclear powerplant, one just needs to drop a nuclear bomb, which most developed nations possess.
As far as I am aware no casualties or environmental damage has occurred in the Ukraine due to radiation. That has been supplied by conventional weapons.
Nuclear is the most wasteful form of energy. Building and decommissioning the power plants takes more money and energy than any other form of energy through its lifecycle. The costs aren’t in the energy production itself but in building and dealing with the waste and decommissioning process. Solar and wind is much less costly and more efficient in the long term, especially as it is today where I live and a lot of the power comes from private solar panels combined with farms.
There’s also much more to the argument against as others have mentioned - nuclear power stations are prime terrorist targets - one of the reasons my country cited it is moving away is security as these can be used to destroy a country and make it uninhabitable. The US and Israel proved it’s possible by hacking an Iranian nuclear plant back in 2010. They disabled it rather than blowing it up but could have made it into a bomb if they wanted to. They essentially allow nations that don’t possess nuclear weapons to have nuclear capabilities against enemies by using their infrastructure against them - much easier than refining uranium and developing their own nuclear weapons.
I am a bit biased as I was a director at Greenpeace for 13 years, but that gave me the opportunity to see the evidence first hand.
Anyway, sorry I took to topic so far off macOS Golden Gate - apologies!
I ended up on the nuclear power Wikipedia page and found a discussion of the economics interesting. As many governments have sold power generation and transport assets or broken up power monopolies, there are now fewer large entities that can justify the investment risks in pursuing an option that costs a lot up front, even if it may be cheaper overall (I recognise it may not be). A massive project is far easier for a state run power company to justify than it is for many smaller individual power companies.
There’s a tenuous link to the years long dev cycle for actually good Siri in that story somewhere… see mods, we’re still on topic.
But… today’s government are rolling back all sorts of environmental protections.
That’s just two countries’ situations. Yours and mine. There are many, many others all over this spectrum.
As far as I’m aware it’s only the US who are denying climate science. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t read about other countries following them, or maybe I’m living in a European bubble because I am always reading about new grants and subsidies for green projects, not rolling back at all.
For example, the EU just announced that they are forking out more than expected on sustainability spending. The EU is on track to spend €662 billion on sustainability objectives across the 2021–2027 cycle. This exceeds their original 30% pledge, sitting at 34% of the total EU budget envelope.
We’re unlikely to agree here , hopefully not a problem. I always thought you needed weapon grade uranium for a bomb, which nuclear power stations do not use? The Israel attack on Natanz (Stuxnet) I thought was a uranium enrichment facility and not a power plant? From what I’m aware in my reading the danger of a nuclear power station is radiation not a bomb, which obviously is not good, but modern plants have very good protection as the Japan plant did when an earthquake hit. I believe nuclear power plants are one of the most secure facilities in countries that use them and the control systems are air-gapped.
Your point of decommissioning is very valid, although these costs are now built into the building and running of the plant as this is legally required before being authorised. Decommissioning costs are also reducing dramatically from 1950’s plants compared to modern plants. Having said that they are still more expensive than wind and solar, although not massively so. The challenge of wind and solar is the quantity of resources needed and waste produced and where to store it. As the wind and solar solution will require replacement 3 times to one nuclear, the future costs of this may well eclipse nuclear decommissioning costs. The other issue is the lack of sustainability of the resources needed for batteries such as lithium, cobalt and nickel. Especially in an era where AI and EV’s are now also competing for those resources. This may well make wind and solar more expensive if this keeps up.
Also apologies for derailing goldengate discussion!
I’m in the UK and various policies have been rolled back recently. Banning the selling of new Fossil Fuel cars by 2030 and the removal of green levies on energy use to fund greener energy generation are the two that spring to mind. The cost of living crisis has focused politicians on the short term populist choices rather than long term benefits.
What’s the point of a debate if we agree! Don’t worry, I have very thick skin.
This is right, the attack was on an enrichment plant. However, the same worm could be used on a power plant and there’s no need for uranium to make a nuclear power plant explode (e.g. Ukraine). The Slammer worm in 2003, for example, was a successful cyberattack on a control network at a nuclear plant. Im afraid to say, but as AI evolves so will the sophistication of cyber attacks. Things will only get worse!
Germany and Spain, both of whom banned nuclear power in recent years, used this as part of the reasoning for their bans.
Maybe our newly minted mod can split this to a new topic, because I want to see discussion on Beta 3, so I can make up my mind whether to take the plunge and install beta software on my main Mac
Haha, the first test! We don’t do dedicated topics for these things. Hopefully the nuclear sidebar is wrapped up, or mostly wrapped up. Appreciate that it’s been cordial.
It could become be a moot point - Britain maybe served with a £4Trillion law suit issued by the ICJ for historical reparations becuase we started the Industrial Revolution London Business (Warning hit show reader as soon as you can to avoid a mess of ads)
, hopefully not a problem. I always thought you needed weapon grade uranium for a bomb, which nuclear power stations do not use? The Israel attack on Natanz (Stuxnet) I thought was a uranium enrichment facility and not a power plant? From what I’m aware in my reading the danger of a nuclear power station is radiation not a bomb, which obviously is not good, but modern plants have very good protection as the Japan plant did when an earthquake hit. I believe nuclear power plants are one of the most secure facilities in countries that use them and the control systems are air-gapped.