The costs of nuclear are addressed all the time.

The problem is the nuke fanbois either ignore the costs or hand-wave them away: "Nuclear is only expensive because of protests and regulations. Next time will be different. Blah, blah, blah."

Even without considering the costs of waste and accidents, nuclear costs four times as much as wind or solar and has a 20-year lead time.

Tens of thousands of barrels of toxic waste were dumped near Catalina Island, but the vast majority are non-radioactive chemical waste.

DDT leaking from the barrels is a much bigger problem than nuclear waste and shows up in the local sea lion population.

Anyway, there's nothing realistic that we can do about it since any attempt to retrieve the barrels will likely make things worse.

15-25 kWh drawn by the utility is quite a bit! I hope they're paying him well for that.

They're bringing outside scrutiny into their processes; that's going to slow them down, too.

Not "at the same time". You're conflating what AI can do now with what it will likely be able to do in a year or five, or 20.

Amodei and others are worried about what AI that doesn't yet exist may do, not about what current-generation AI can do. AI is getting better, very quickly, and unless there's some blocking obstacle that no one has been able to identify will at some point become far, far smarter than humans, individually or collectively. So before that happens, we need to figure out how to make sure that superintelligent AI wants to help us, and wants to do it in the right way.

I think this is untrue. Every movie I've seen does a pretty good job of hiding that gap...you can see it with a sharp critical eye, but if you're not paying attention it looks convincing. The Higgsfield stuff looks AWFUL...any idiot can see it's fake and impossible. Also, how could the author help it? AI is the author. It already has good training data. If your assertion was that it will look like hollywood, give or take 50%, I'd agree with you.

My assertion is the gap is 4-10x wider and more exaggerated. AI is a pattern matching tool...it matches and generates based on it's training data as you stated, so it's a miracle if it improves on the training data, but if it's 10x worse....well....we're going to be waiting for this to impact movies people actually care about. Some late night SyFy slop?...eh, possibly, but even then....this stuff costs a lot of money and looks like garbage today and no one likes the end result...so I can see it help with some shitty background scenes where they just don't care, but I can't see it replace the cast or core film anytime soon.

Have you ever seen a long movie that's actually convincing that is generated by AI? I've seen sloppy ones. Even the "good" ones, like Higgsfield ones are impressive for AI, but not convincing. The shots are claustrophobically close...mostly to keep from rendering hands or the bodies. The physics are just WRONG...which is something you'd think AI would be able to do OK. Like punches are a foot away from making contact and things are just really really off.

There will definitely be a niche for this...but AI movies are kinda like fruit-flavored candy. Grape sales didn't plummet once nerds candy came out in grape flavors.

The AI movie experience is slowly improving, but is still terrible. You can make a very short 5s shot that's QUITE convincing...so long as there's a single subject...really closeup.

There's an interesting parallel in AI porn. A girl in a bikini? AI gets an A+. I am not confident I can spot the AI vs a real image. Most of the time, I can detect mistakes in the background, but they're quite great at the foreground. At first, they'd always make lighting mistakes, but I just looked at some reddit examples and they've gotten quite better.

OK, the woman gets naked? B- Real women don't have perfectly circular symmetrical nipples. It's mistakes like that really mess things up. The shadows and proportions are often just "off"...however, where it fails nearly universally is any sort of liquid. if she's in the shower? (or any other fluids on her)...definitely F.

Video? Well...if there's on subject...it's definitely getting better. I've seen videos where I can't tell if it was generated by AI or was a real video through some sort of AI correction filter....so long as it's a closeup of the subject's face and has minimal movement. If there's a second person? I've seen C- videos here and there, but mostly horrible Fs. There's a LOT of physics mistakes from basic movements to fluids. Objects change size from frame to frame, etc.

Why do I bring up porn? Well...not just because I'm a pervert...TBH, AI porn isn't for me. However, it's because I believe many great consumer technology leaps were driven by porn: photography, home video, the internet, the smart phone, etc. Most of us love sex, don't get enough of it, and are willing to pay to get our thrills.

But also, there's a LOT of porn on the internet that would make for very easy training data. LOTS. Also, the subject matter is limited in scope, making the data more likely to be applicable. Next to sports, I can't imagine much filmed more often than a woman taking her top off...so...it is logical to assume it's the easiest thing for AI to generate. Few things are shared on the internet more than images of breasts. Why can't AI render a topless woman convincingly?

Once AI masters recreating a basic porn, I think Hollywood has reason to fear. However, if AI only works if the subjects is EXTREMELY closeup, doesn't show their hands, there's no fluid, there's little movement...then the movies it can make are really limited. Also, AI movies are EXPENSIVE to make today. I can't imagine people paying top dollar to see AI slop...and today, they cannot make them cheap enough to just give away for free for very long.

So while I can see a few scenes here and there or backgrounds using AI...we're FAR from replacing actors in convincing movies that don't look like shit. Also, AI is just not that popular. People hate AI slop. I don't see that changing until it actually does something cool...custom content?...maybe...but making slop with AI and charging us movie theater prices?....I don't see that working very well.

Is this actually a substantial amount of energy? I'm in Utah (Rocky Mountain Power) and RMP also pays me to use my batteries... but the amount of energy they draw is tiny. 8-10 times per week they draw on my batteries, but it's like 4 kW peak draw (my batteries can sustain 20 kW), and generally for less than 30 seconds, so in any given week I'm only contributing like 0.2 kWh. As I understand it, this is because RMP uses my batteries not really to "serve loads", per se, but just as grid stabilization; brief backfill to keep the voltage from sagging.

Obviously my batteries do serve *my* loads, which reduces the load on the grid, but that's not what RMP pays me for.

Does CA make heavier use of residential batteries to feed the grid?

And JD Vance called him Hitler. Trump accepts changes of heart as long as they include sufficient groveling and self-humiliation. SBF's problem is he doesn't currently have any money, and doesn't have a lot of friends to put up cash for him either. If SCOTUS will overturn his fine on a technicality and he can get some or all of that money back, then he'll have the cash to buy a pardon. Obviously he needs to get it done in the next 2 years, four months.

So you're seriously stating that these LARGE tech companies are using human beings and not self-driving cars because humans are more affordable? FUCK RIGHT OFF, with your bullshit shilling. They hire all these human beings because automation can't do the job. If they could, they would roll it out widely. Tech companies are heavily financed and whoever solves self-driving cars will make a MASSIVE fortune. Yeah, there are limited pilot programs, probably with remote operators at this point. (there are mixed reports about Waymo...I believe they have to rely on remote operators a lot more than they'd like to admit, hence why their rollout is so limited.)

Think of it this ways. Taxis are hard. You have to drive in busy areas and time matters and safety is a greater concern. If the technology COULD self-drive, there are MANY problems a LOT more lucrative than fucking taxi fares. How about shipping? Imagine how much money would be made if long haul trucks could drive while the driver is sleeping, even if at reduced speed? Highway driving at reduced speed is a LOT easier than running cabs in SF or Austin. There are millions of jobs that involve driving in areas no one wants to drive. There are many militaries would would pay TOP DOLLAR to keep troops out of harm's way transporting fuel through warzones. Even just having a car that can valet-park itself would be HUGE for bored rich tech bros willing to shell out huge sums of money.

I wholesale reject your bullshit theory that these tech companies are not doing everything they can to master self-driving technology because human labor is affordable. You must not know Silicon Valley. The founders? They're nearly all autistic...even if the founder is Neurotypical, his lead engineers aren't. They hate people even more than they like money. Tech is cool. Tech is inspirational. Meatbags? They suck. They make mistakes and sleep and quit and are very unpredictable. Tech companies would rather innovate at modest to little profit than rely on unreliable gig workers to make a fortune. They're famously logical, but not in this respect. The notion of being transported to the place of their choosing without having to interact with a human being is too exciting for people like them.

They're already "behind automated technologies". No, the gig workers have nothing to lose. They're getting exploited now. You can't outsource their job to Bangladesh. There's really no way to treat them more poorly. Fox News must have really done a number on your brain to think otherwise.

No one is forcing him to spend money he doesn't have to produce a product no one will pay for.

He has irresponsibly played a game and even helped make the rules. Now he realizes other people are better at it than he is, but he keeps spending borrowed money for 'pay to play' and all the other players except openai (his twin) are figuring out how to play for much less.

His biggest competition are the bastards at companies like Alibaba, Microsoft, and Google who actually have products, services, and paying customers who will stick with them even if their AI is a generation or three behind.

See, it's perfectly ok to slow down. The others have done it. But they cheated... They actually had business plans.

Red light is thought to activate a regeneration mechanism within the body.

It interacts with some of the compounds in mitochondria that promotes healing and cellular recovery. It also has a biphasic effect: too little does nothing, too much does nothing, but the right amount can have therapeutic value.

The fact that you're unwilling to pay the incredibly low price of attaching even a pseudonym to your statement speaks volumes. Not even by mentioning it in your AC post.