this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
1042 points (97.4% liked)

Technology

58143 readers
5171 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@lemmy.world 232 points 11 months ago (12 children)

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

[–] BaronVonBort@lemmy.world 77 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] Abnorc@lemm.ee 53 points 11 months ago (2 children)

“What operating system is that running?”

“Uh… vista.”

“We’re all going to die!”

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 26 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 33 points 11 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] AttackPanda@programming.dev 18 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I mean it’s fine so long as someone remembers to pay the Mcafee bill right????

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Godort@lemm.ee 33 points 11 months 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)
[–] whitecapstromgard@sh.itjust.works 31 points 11 months ago

Even Microsoft does not trust Windows on Azure 🤣

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 30 points 11 months 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 (8 replies)
[–] ascense@lemm.ee 170 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] ZILtoid1991@kbin.social 32 points 11 months 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)
[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 84 points 11 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 34 points 11 months 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@lemmy.world 74 points 11 months ago (6 children)

requires an intensive carbon footprint

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

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 70 points 11 months ago

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

[–] Havald@lemmy.world 61 points 11 months 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.

[–] Silverseren@kbin.social 53 points 11 months ago (1 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.

[–] Nilz@sopuli.xyz 17 points 11 months ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 17 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Astroturfed@lemmy.world 49 points 11 months ago (4 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?

[–] Zimmy@lemm.ee 38 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] Astroturfed@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Yes, and they could just live in the virtual reality so they never have to stop providing power. It'd be perfect

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mojo@lemm.ee 49 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] PlexSheep@feddit.de 19 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (22 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.

[–] Steve 22 points 11 months 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 (21 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 47 points 11 months 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)
[–] sixCats@lemmy.dbzer0.com 46 points 11 months 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)
[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 37 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Tell me more about how capitalists efficiently allocate resources.

[–] realharo@lemm.ee 39 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months 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)
[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 33 points 11 months ago (3 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

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I guess history does repeat itself. Next you’ll be telling me that 640GB of RAM is enough.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Z3k3@lemmy.world 28 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months 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)
[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 24 points 11 months ago

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

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 24 points 11 months 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)
[–] not_gsa@lemm.ee 23 points 11 months ago (12 children)

There is nothing wrong with nuclear power

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 20 points 11 months ago

Imagine if it ends up requiring the achieving of ignition for Microsoft to launch a version of clippy that is able to reliably comprehend English grammar enough to make writing recommendations.

[–] Phero@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago

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

[–] squiblet@kbin.social 19 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 18 points 11 months ago (14 children)

Burning 3 continents worth of coal to steal artwork at maximum efficiency.

[–] hogmomma@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (15 children)

Do nuclear reactors use coal?

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›