We may eventually get some SMRs. But this will take a long time, i.e. 50 years or more. The material sciences are just not there. The experience is not there and nuclear power operates unter massively different conditions that most industrial installations. And the uranium supply is surprisingly limited if you need to be economically viable. That may eventually change, but whether it will ever be able to catch up to renewables commercially is really unclear. The problem is that nuclear power is a commercially completely failed industry and old and stagnant now (no easy wins to be had), while renewables and storage are continuing to get refined and better.

The one thing that may work out in the next 10 or 20 years is the THTR. The Chinese are currently trying a refined version based on the German patents. (The Germans wrecked 3 expensive prototypes and then called it quits...) If the Chinese can make it work, and so far it seems they may be able to, they may eventually be able to bring the cost down to a level where it becomes somewhat competitive. And that thing burns Thorium and cannot actually melt down or blow up. It also produces far less of a problem regarding spend fuel.

Note that the other Thorium reactor China is experimenting with is a molten salt reactor. That one has far less of a chance of being a success as the technology is even less well understood. The THTR-300 in Germany was killed by mechanical problems with feeding the fuel balls, not by nuclear or chemical problems. Molten salt reactor face all of these.

Sure, compare to coal. Just shows you have no clue. Coal is not used for regulation energy. Same as nuclear.

Simple: These were cheap pen testers. You may also notice they got caught?

I expect that will be soon, as they announced their cluelessness and stupidity internationally. Unless there is nothing to steal there?

That one is simple: All you need is excessive stupidity and being utterly full of yourself. Then you prosecute. Then you settle and lose a lot of money. But the money gets paid by the taxpayer, not you. So you can do it again and again and again until the deeply stupid voters notice something.

That would be nice. But remember that the LLM-stupidity is currently all props up the US economy? And that the business numbers of all of them are utterly catastrophic? And that the evidence mounts that there are actually very few valid and no high-value applications for LLMs?

I would be all for a soft landing, but I think what is incoming is a 20 year or so world economic crisis that will be really, really bad. Hopefully the current assholes of the AI community will also never recover and we also get a 20 year (or longer) break from their lies.

Yes. Do you?

Indeed. Also, walking is nice. It gives you time to think.

Same here. I live 4 floors up. There is a very nice elevator. I only use it rarely, and only with good reasons. It does make a real difference.

Seriously, get a clue. This is not the current hype AI at work.

Very likely. While LLM-type AI can create attack code from CVEs, it is total crap at finding CVE-level vulnerabilities. Also note that in actual CVEs, the rating gets verified, because the ones that find vulnerabilities have a rather strong tendency to strongly overstate things.

And on top of that, they may be "real" vulnerabilities that are prohibitively hard to exploit or that do not even come with a credible exploitation scenario. Also remember the mountain of slop the cURL people have been getting.

Without detailed documentation and independent analysis of each of these, the "500" claim is simply nonsense and probably qualifies as a lie by misdirection.

And finally we would need to how many vulnerabilities this thing did not find and how sensitive the process is to prompt variation. Because that is what attackers will do to find other vulnerabilities.

They clearly are getting more desperate. Their business numbers must be even worse than publicly known.

Only if you are clueless. There is mathematical proof that LLMs cannot do that. See, for example, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.075...

Indeed. That makes any verification of the claim impossible. In Science, such a statement is regarded as completely worthless and meaningless. In IT security, it is worse and regarded as basically a lie by misdirection. At least by competent IT security experts.

What a real test would show is how many vulnerabilities and which ones exactly were NOT found. And how much the set of vulnerabilities changes with different prompts. Because that is what attackers are going to do.