this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
1140 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

59642 readers
3251 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AbouBenAdhem 260 points 1 year ago (14 children)

The thought of a nuclear reactor running on Windows is terrifying.

[–] BaronVonBort 87 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They’re going to build it in 2026 but it’ll still somehow be running on XP.

[–] [email protected] 59 points 1 year ago (2 children)

“What operating system is that running?”

“Uh… vista.”

“We’re all going to die!”

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

XP is still a solid OS as long as you don't connect to the internet.

[–] FlyingSquid 35 points 1 year ago (4 children)

A nuclear reactor connected to the internet sounds like a bad idea.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago

Even Microsoft does not trust Windows on Azure 🤣

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] scarabic 31 points 1 year ago (11 children)

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.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 186 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This gave me an idea for some level design I might want to use in a video game.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] qaz 168 points 1 year ago (10 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 83 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, I don't understand why building a relatively clean energy source is a bad thing. Reactors are now like 3+ generations past the versions that were super dangerous. Hell, they even have reactors that can use spent fuel from other reactors.

[–] [email protected] 53 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Oil lobby and other interests. Follow the money. Plus it's easy to play on people's fears about radioactive waste.

Oh well, countries that know what's what just quietly build and use their reactors and go about their business. Finland for example is set for a while now.

[–] Telodzrum 22 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Environmental groups are the biggest opposition to new nuclear builds.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] scarabic 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] negativeyoda 154 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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

[–] jarfil 26 points 1 year ago (11 children)

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"...

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] elbarto777 23 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] RizzRustbolt 92 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So we finally get thorium power, but its only used to make celebrity porn for incels.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hey, whatever keeps them out of Walmart parking lots at 1am.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NocturnalMorning 84 points 1 year ago (10 children)

requires an intensive carbon footprint

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

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Nuclear power means they can do both.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Hear me out:

What if we used that nuclear power only to fix the environment?

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] MeanEYE 78 points 1 year ago

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

[–] Havald 64 points 1 year ago (10 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 57 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 57 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Nuclear power is actually way cheaper.

You just need to find a geologically safe place to put it and you need to make sure everyone involved follows safety protocols to the letter. And you can't have anyone cutting corners to save money. You need to spare no expense when it comes to safety.

The only issue is that people don't stay strict with keeping everything safe sometimes. People are terrified of it because when something goes wrong, everyone can see the very gruesome results very quickly

But I don't think microsoft or any company should be making an AI at the rate they are if it's going to take as much resources as it seems.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Astroturfed 52 points 1 year ago (6 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago (4 children)

They might get bored though. Maybe hook them up to some kind of virtual reality world.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The reason is ultimately irrelevant, but I welcome more nuclear energy.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (32 children)

They could just invest in a solar farm or something, they are just a lot more economical.

Nuclear is okay, but the costs compared to renewables are very high, and you have to put a lot of effort and security into building a reactor, compared to a solar panel that you can basically just put up and replace if it snaps.

You probably know this discussion already through.

Edit: Glad to see a nice instance of the discussion going here.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

In their specific use case that won't really work.

They want to use all of their available property for server racks. Covering the roof with solar won't give enough power/area for them. A small reactor would use a tiny fraction of the space, and generate several times the power. That's why it'd be worth the extra cost.

load more comments (31 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 49 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Tell me more about how capitalists efficiently allocate resources.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

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.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago (6 children)

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

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Z3k3 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Hi bing. How do I stop a nuclear reactor from going critical?

For those correcting my error It was just a joke. The only things I know about nuclear power I learned from the simpsons and Kyle hill

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago

LLM seemed really impressive at first, but it made it to “this year’s NFTs” in record time.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (7 children)

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

Fusion won’t be ready by then

Energy should be public

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (50 children)

Just fill the Country with Solar, Wind and Water... won't take 10 years and will be cheaper too.

load more comments (50 replies)
[–] Phero 22 points 1 year ago

I guess the rich don’t have an energy crisis.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I can't handle this . i'm going to sleep.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›