Still not really the point. If by to "move away from nuclear" you mean closing existing plants early, you might have a point. However if you just mean not building new ones that it really seems like you do not. New renewables go up fast, and they are operational essentially immediately. A nuclear plant produces no power until after "first light" when it is 100% complete. A 10% complete wind or solar farm produces 10% of the power. If you only complete 70% of it then have to stop for a decade, the farm produces 70% for that decade.

Synthetic jet fuels would be a parallel goal of course. Ideally as much of aviation as possible would be swapped with electric. Using swappable metal-air primary batteries (for example aluminum-air) and and efficient flying V plane designs (which have the added advantage that they naturally have enough volume relative to weight capacity that the airlines simply can't stuff people in like sardines) has the potential to make 80% of plane routes all electric (and still just as fast as current commercial airliners). The remaining 20% would be routes that require higher altitude flights to avoid turbulence over certain mountain ranges or certain storm patterns.

I am pretty sure pretty much everyone in this discussion is aware of it though. In any case, it is a serious indictment of fossil coal (not a problem for the synthetic stuff I mentioned though, since the only elements in it would be carbon and any radioactive carbon in it would have come from the atmosphere to start with anyway), but coal wasn't really a consideration in this discussion in the first place. I will certainly concede that "it's not as bad as coal" is actually a good argument when we already have coal under consideration. So, coal being a bad idea seems like something we can all agree on.

Regardless of Hollywood context though, it's pretty much undeniable that what the original poster said about the catastrophic nature of something going wrong is correct. There is, in fact 880 tons of what they are calling corium barely kept cool by constant pumping of water underground in Fukushima right now. The place needs something like 50 megaWatts to pump and filter the water, ventilate and maintain negative internal air pressures, oh and maintain a massive zone of frozen ground! They have only just now started removing the spent fuel rods that weren't even involved in the meltdown. They can't even realistically start on the actual cleanup until what they now say will be 2037 (that is likely to be pushed back) and that job is not expected to be completed for a century.

Given that sort of thing, I think it is reasonable for someone to point out that, when a wind turbine goes wrong, the consequences aren't quite so massive or require so much trouble to clean up.

Now, some of the new designs do indeed deal with some of those problems. Like the whole thing with needing constant power to avoid a catastrophic failure, or the pooling of spent fuel into a critical mass. That's definitely a good thing if any get built, but it doesn't remove the concerns for people who have been told repeatedly that this sort of thing literally can't happen again before it happens again.

Personally, at this point, any such concerns are on the back burner for me. I think the safety questions and the waste disposal problems that have lingered for nearly a century at this point are frustrating, but they are simply not showstoppers for me. My problems with nuclear power focus primarily on speed and agility and nuclear power is not fast or agile. Renewables quite simply seem to be faster and more versatile, not to mention, until someone proves otherwise, cheaper.

As for SMRs specifically, my concerns boil down to economies of scale and essentially the square cube law. Everything suggests that SMRs produce less power per unit of pretty much everything involved. The reactor cores don't produce as much thermal energy for their size relative to larger cores in the first place. Then, while some things in the rest of the plant may scale down linearly with the size of the core, many things do not, so there needs to be more overall plant for the actual rate of power produced. Plus refueling schedules, etc., etc. Ultimately, they seem to mostly exist at this point to draw in investment. Most nuclear scientists whose careers aren't riding on this will tell you that SMRs aren't really practical except for niche applications.

That is a pretty loaded statement.. Let's not forget that the anti-nuclear stance of Greenpeace was mostly about nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons testing. Even the single guy, who isn't generally considered a "founder" (let alone multiple founders) by anyone other than himself (or all the people who quote him as the founder or multiple founders to promote nuclear power). Basically, there are 7 founders from the original committee and then 2 more who were involved in the Green Peace name and in directing the committee. Patrick Moore, the "founder" you're talking about wasn't on the committee, wasn't originally a director, didn't name the organization, and, even if he counted as a founder, would only be 10% of the founders. He was an early member and was on the first boat trip, and was an early leader and was there as the organization grew and renamed to Greenpeace. There is another claimant to being a founder, Paul Watson who formed a breakaway organization who never went pro-nuclear power. Ultimately, there are dozens of early members with similar bona fides to Moore who could make a roughly equal claim to him to be a founder. ) Moore was a guy who left Greenpeace after a dispute over chlorine policy (as a tipping point anyway, he was apparently pretty autocratic and didn't get along with people), then failed in his business and realized he could make a career out of selling himself to lobbying firms as a "Greenpeace founder". He started with promoting the clear cutting of old growth forests for logging companies. He expanded from there, eventually to nuclear power. He also moved on to climate change denial, including claims that it's actually good for the planet.

Basically he's a sellout who went into PR and "crisis management" who helps companies green wash. This is the guy who had an interview where he said you could drink a whole quart of glyphosate and "it wouldn't hurt you." to which the interviewer replied "We have some here. Do you want to drink it?" to which he replied "I'm not an idiot!" and stormed out. So, in other words, someone who literally can't swallow his own story.

Basically at present, nuclear is pretty much doomed to be relegated mostly to niches for the foreseeable future because there seem to be better alternatives.

"We should be moving away from coal" is a good argument. Absolutely we should be moving away from coal. But that argument is orthogonal to what we should be building for new power generation aside from that we shouldn't be building coal power (not fossil coal anyway, though there is an interesting argument for capturing CO2 from the ocean to make what would essentially be pure carbon synthetic coal to be used as carbon-neutral to slightly carbon-negative third or fourth tier power storage and burned for power with iron-oxides to avoid burning any atmosphere nitrogen and producing only pure CO2 as exhaust). Since the actual context was safety standards and how they needed to be tighter for nuclear because of how catastrophic things could be if things go wrong, then contrasting with coal power wasn't really appropriate.

Well, certainly you can't trust what he says or does. I was just pointing out that the claim that allies lined up behind the US and Israel against Iran was a bit odd because they didn't and Trump has been attacking them for it. He seems truly confused about the purpose of NATO and the obligations of its members.

None of which requires bypassing downloading the actual, current page in favor of whatever tokenized version the AI model has.

Actually, without a need to pay for servers (virtual or other), it offers freedom from sponsors that want the conversation kept profitable and ad friendly.

I explicitly said that it almost certainly isn't happening because of the lack of selection pressure.

Once again, they don't kill remotely enough birds, so there is indeed no filter. We do not disagree on that. If, however, somehow it were an issue then there are numerous existing features, behavioral or otherwise, that would be selected for. I named a bunch of them. They already exist, natural selection would just make them more prevalent. None of them are magic, they mostly fall under existing avoidance instincts.

Sure, although there is some possibility of some birds thinking they can roost on them.

I think you may have gotten it into your head that I'm disagreeing with more of what you're saying than I actually am. The only real disagreement here is about existing instincts and other genetically coded factors that would be concentrated by selection pressure if any real, significant selection pressure existed from wind turbines.

To me it sounds like a newb wrote a web app and didn't quite know what an API is.

Did it use the API normally or did it do an SQL injection?

It's still a cloud, just one behind a military firewall.

And the AI circumvented them because of bad coding. That part of the story is not at all new.

Or more to the point, why on the open internet? Put it on 10/8 or unallocated IPv6 somewhere and VPN it through the public internet if they must.

That way, if the camera tries to phone home, it won't find a router willing to complete that call.

Banks are supposed to lend money. I just saved them the paperwork.

Of course, AI also sometimes ignores instructions. Like when an AI decided to delete a production database in spite of being told not to touch production.

The AI in the robot, of course. Because some fool granted agency to an AI.

Of course it's extreme. So is committing a crime to sign up for classes at the gym. So is starting a smear campaign to get sloppy patches into an open source project or attempting to fool a judge with fake case law. But those have all happened.

That's EXACTLY why I maintain that AI should NEVER be given agency. Don't allow it to commit code, don't allow it to interact with anyone but the user. For God's sake, don't put it in a robot.

It did hack the Gym's registration system. Perhaps not the deepest or most impressive hack, but it did circumvent the business rules in place. Surely you don't claim that letting random people on the web bounce people off of a waiting list was the intended functioning of the Gym's registration system!?!?

I maintain that the article was NOT overhyped or clickbait. I say that because apparently most people don't realize that an AI agent might randomly decide to break the law as a shortcut when you tell it to do something. They probably think nobody would be incredibly stupid enough to unleash that on an unsuspecting public (they're wrong, of course).

Remember in the X-Files when Mulder spent 24 hours trying and failing to draft an airtight wish for the genie, then ultimately decided it just wasn't feasible? That's apparently required to use an AI with agency safely. Sounds like a bad idea.