Here's a case of a very experienced journalist getting caught by including made-up quotes that had been hallucinated by the AI he'd used to summarize research information: https://www.theguardian.com/te...

Vandermeersch added: “It is particularly painful that I made precisely the mistake I have repeatedly warned colleagues about: these language models are so good that they produce irresistible quotes you are tempted to use as an author. Of course, I should have verified them. The necessary ‘human oversight’, which I consistently advocate, fell short.”

When even experienced journalists fail to find AI hallucinations, you really can't expect unpaid volunteers to do better.

Yes. To be precise, banning is a form of regulation which the amendment forbids. Regulation OTHER than banning is not forbidden.

Unfortunately, even the best LLMs sometimes make up information ("hallucinate"), and the stuff they make up is deliberately crafted to appear exactly like real information. This is simply unacceptable for an encyclopedia.

If Wikipedia were written by paid professionals, you could plausibly put in place protocols to check and verify, and fire the ones who fail to check properly, but even paid professionals have been seen to let hallucinations through. As it is, as an encyclopedia that it is put together by volunteers, forbidding AI is pretty much a forced choice.

https://www.evidentlyai.com/bl...
  https://arize.com/llm-hallucin...
  https://thisweekinsciencenews....

But a question to ask is, was it actually a robot? Or was it just a remote teleoperated by a human?

The problem is that a sock puppet uses an actual human to operate it, while bots run with little or no need for human effort. So a human can turn out a handful of posts with sock puppets, while bots can be churn out thousands and thousands of posts, swamping any system with slop.

Let me verify: you are actually denying that the root of regulus is regus, genitive case of the Latin rex, "king"?

https://www.latin-is-simple.co...
  https://www.wordhippo.com/what...

For reference, that is known as the "Eddington limit" (on the rate of black hole accretion).

No.

Logically, it means that arms can be regulated, but cannot be banned.

Regulated, from the early 15th century, means according to rules, from the Latin root Regis, "of the king".

No, they only require calibration if you want the results to be accurate.

Let's check that. Here is the link that takes you to a random Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

How many times do you have to click that link to find an example of the hallucinations that you claim are "about half" of Wikipedia?

Not sure why this is moderated troll; this may be opinions that may be debated, but are quite reasonable to bring up.

There's a pretty good argument that small reactors won't be as low cost as large ones, on a dollars per watt basis. Basically, the scaling laws for nuclear power favor high power-- it's not ten times cheaper to produce one tenth the power. The people arguing for small reactors suggest that they can manufacture them in large quantities, and get an economy of scale in that manufacture, but this is a projection unsupported by anything but hand-waving.

Safety is another issue. There exist much safer reactor designs. I don't know enough about the small reactor designs to comment here. Would have been good to have cited some links specifically about small reactor safety issues.

At the moment, nuclear power plants produce energy for electrical applications, while oil produces energy for transportation applications. These are not interchangeable, so, no, building more reactors wouldn't have negated the need for oil.

There is a drive to move transportation to being powered by electrical energy, rather than oil (there's also a drive, funded by oil company profits, to delay or kill this shift), but it will still be quite a bit longer before that displaces a significant amount of oil use.

Oil is used for other things, of course, but while applications like heating can switch to electrical power, this also takes time.

Especially poor people. Which are the people we're talking about.

Where does the money come from?

The summary copied the text of the article, but left out the second half of the article, which is the important part:

It’s not clear, however, that the effort will get new supplies of electricity built quickly enough to ease pressure on grids, said Jon Gordon, who is a senior director at Advanced Energy United, a clean energy trade group that includes some datacenters. That’s in part due to Trump’s policy focus on increasing natural gas and other fossil fuel-fired power for datacenters, instead of quicker-build sources like solar and wind, he added. “The real problem is the inability to get generation online fast enough to meet the datacenter demand,” Gordon said. “Hyperscalers paying for the generation doesn’t get it online any faster.“

You can't build new power plants immediately. Companies saying they'll "pay for new power generation and grid upgrades" (even if they actually do this, instead of completely ignoring this non-binding "pledge") some time in the future won't help the fact that the data centers consume power now/