Nuclear energy and its problems, has seemed to me a firing analogy for a while.
Theoretically, as an energy technology, there’s plenty to gain.
But radiation and inherently catastrophic danger are fundamentally incompatible with biology and wellbeing, and so humanity mostly rejected the technology.
LLMs likely have some similar incompatibilities, despite whatever promise they may or may not have.
EDIT -
So the responses to this are funny. For the record, I’m likely as much a pro-nuclear person as much as anyone here (Or used to be I guess). It should be a net-gain technology with solvable problems, and sticking with fossil fuels instead has likely been just dumb.
But I still think the point holds. There’s something about an invisible danger - radiation - that triggers wariness in people, and there’s something reasonable about that. Especially when you factor in the reliability of groups of people to do what’s in the collective interest even when there are high stakes.
And yea, CO2 is invisible too … but look where that has got us! Main difference is that its ill effects are not direct, individualistic, or relatively quick compared to radiation.
Then, compared renewables, you start to get a clearer picture, and analogy too. Maybe, sometimes, the worse technology that is more compatible with human nature is better overall.
The radiation issue is simple to solve, just add more material around it. Waste management is really simple, dig a deep hole in stable bedrock, put the waste there, backfill with clay, done.
Mining, yeah, that is an issue, but we can solve that.
Before any mine is permitted to open, there should be the requirement to establish an independent environmental fund, the fund will be started with a lump sum, and every year X% of the value of the minerals extracted that year will be put into the environmental fund.
That fund is then used to clean up the site and restore it as much as possible.
Transportation? Most countries (including the US) have working freight rail system, cheap and one of the most environmentally friendly ways of overland transport.
Reactors not blowing up? That is an extremely uncommon failure mode. It is mostly solved by planning, don’t build in seismic active areas, select the correct type of reactor, establish safe procedures and have a disciplined and well trained workforce.
So wake me up when all of this has been solved. (Note the tense.) All kinds of things “can be done safely”. (Note both the tense and the mood.) The point is they’re not being done safely. In theory LLMs don’t have to be death spiral machines. In reality they all are.
Nuclear energy and its problems, has seemed to me a firing analogy for a while.
Theoretically, as an energy technology, there’s plenty to gain.
But radiation and inherently catastrophic danger are fundamentally incompatible with biology and wellbeing, and so humanity mostly rejected the technology.
LLMs likely have some similar incompatibilities, despite whatever promise they may or may not have.
So the responses to this are funny. For the record, I’m likely as much a pro-nuclear person as much as anyone here (Or used to be I guess). It should be a net-gain technology with solvable problems, and sticking with fossil fuels instead has likely been just dumb.
But I still think the point holds. There’s something about an invisible danger - radiation - that triggers wariness in people, and there’s something reasonable about that. Especially when you factor in the reliability of groups of people to do what’s in the collective interest even when there are high stakes.
And yea, CO2 is invisible too … but look where that has got us! Main difference is that its ill effects are not direct, individualistic, or relatively quick compared to radiation.
Then, compared renewables, you start to get a clearer picture, and analogy too. Maybe, sometimes, the worse technology that is more compatible with human nature is better overall.
The radiation issue is simple to solve, just add more material around it. Waste management is really simple, dig a deep hole in stable bedrock, put the waste there, backfill with clay, done.
Now do mining. And transportation. And reactors not blowing up. You know, all those simple to solve problems.
Mining, yeah, that is an issue, but we can solve that.
Before any mine is permitted to open, there should be the requirement to establish an independent environmental fund, the fund will be started with a lump sum, and every year X% of the value of the minerals extracted that year will be put into the environmental fund.
That fund is then used to clean up the site and restore it as much as possible.
Transportation? Most countries (including the US) have working freight rail system, cheap and one of the most environmentally friendly ways of overland transport.
Reactors not blowing up? That is an extremely uncommon failure mode. It is mostly solved by planning, don’t build in seismic active areas, select the correct type of reactor, establish safe procedures and have a disciplined and well trained workforce.
So wake me up when all of this has been solved. (Note the tense.) All kinds of things “can be done safely”. (Note both the tense and the mood.) The point is they’re not being done safely. In theory LLMs don’t have to be death spiral machines. In reality they all are.
The only thing not being done safely is mining.
The rest is and has been for decades.
Coal and oil powerplants emit far, far more radiation than a nuclear plant, that is on top of all the normal shit in smoke.
So in your world trains never derail, trucks never crash?
Here on planet Earth…
It happens, sure, but very rarely.
And with the nuclear containment cars, it doesn’t really matter in terms of radiation, they are so over engineered that they don’t break.
I like the world you live in. I recommend you avoid Earth.
Unlike oil, that is SO SAFE that we never saw an environmental catastrophe caused by an oil tanker spilling its cargo…
Ooh! Whataboutism! Absolutely not an irrelevant injection here, not in the slightest!