this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
374 points (99.2% liked)

People Twitter

7708 readers
1456 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 109 points 10 months ago (3 children)

What a waste of power. Somehow they went from "we're green tech!" to "fuck it, we need ALL the power" real quick. And for nothing.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 33 points 10 months ago (2 children)
[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 19 points 10 months ago (12 children)

They are making money off AI. Don't think they're not. I don't understand how, but these company's are getting profit.

[–] vulgarcynic@sh.itjust.works 29 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If you look at the enterprise pricing and options for Copilot and Security Copilot, they're building a pretty obvious business model around automating everything from end user basic tasks to tier 1 incident response.

I'm not advocating that it will work, especially as a person in IR but, all the big players are pushing for security automation. All it's going to take is one high profile incident to shift the CSO's and the like to jump in with both hands full of "ai" purchase orders.

The shittiest part is, this is only going to eliminate more entry level secops jobs. Jobs that are generally a great place to start in the industry.

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's also going to create more headaches for the people left to fix things

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not necessarily. Companies chase what's popular because it boosts the stock. Executives get bonuses and move to the next hot idea.

Remember when everything was block chain?

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago

No, I mean they are literally making money from it. Asianometry touched on it, but didn't explain how they were making the profit.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] i_stole_ur_taco@lemmy.ca 16 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Don’t forget that Microsoft isn’t some dumb company trying to jump on the AI bandwagon. They’re a cloud provider and Azure provides lots of AI options.

Microsoft is one of the platforms raking in heaps of money from dumb companies trying to jump on the AI bandwagon. They’re the equivalent of the people selling MAGA shirts outside trump rallies.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Kuvwert@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago

Nuclear is green

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 104 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I can't wait for this AI bubble to pop.

I'm not saying that some parts of AI have utility - machine learning for medical scans will be a great thing for instance, but the "oooh new! shiny! venture capitalist, line-must-go-up" side of things can well and truly fuck off.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 19 points 10 months ago

Exactly. I'm bullish on AI, I'm not bullish on what the mass market media calls "AI."

[–] Death_Equity@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I don't think it will pop.

Everyone is trying to get in on the ground floor for actual AI. True AI will be as revolutionary as electricity and online porn.

[–] greenskye@lemm.ee 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

We are a long way off from true AI. You know how VR was a thing with the virtual boy and then the whole thing died for awhile until the oculus and vive revived the idea like 20 years later? And how VR is basically dead again because it's still not quite there? AI is basically like that. We'll get there eventually, but this current trend isn't going to be enough to get us to true AI. It'll go quiet again for awhile until there's some new approach that revives the hype again. Maybe the next phase will do it, but the current AI approach is a dead end from a true AI perspective.

[–] Death_Equity@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

You aren't wrong; but unlike VR, "dumb" AI has been added to so many devices, used so prolifically, and been invested in so much that it will hold until real AI exists.

AI has already written more on the internet than humans have. There is no reason to believe it is a niche product like VR.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (8 children)

Can you explain what you mean? True AI? Like AGI or something else?

[–] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 5 points 10 months ago

They want Jane from Speaker for the Dead, they're going to get Skynet.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 61 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Why can corporations own nuclear plants? Aren't they people? Can I own a nuclear plant? Or am I just stuck building additional pylons?

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 33 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

AFAIK, There's nothing that says you can't make your own nuclear power plant. Just stuff forbidding you from obtaining nuclear material. Which would make it hard to operate a power plant. But you could still make one that doesn't do anything!

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Strictly speaking, anyone can apply for a license to build a plant but you do need a license. The whole thing is pretty regulated.

[–] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The whole thing is pretty regulated.

I feel like that's probably a good thing.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

It's stifles innovation.

/s

[–] Quexotic@sh.itjust.works 7 points 10 months ago

Reminds me of this dude that tried to make a reactor out of americium from smoke detectors.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

[–] cevn@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You must construct additional pylons.

[–] ResoluteCatnap@lemmy.ml 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Roses are read

Violets are blue

The only additional pylon i need is you 💜

[–] TheHarpyEagle@pawb.social 33 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I mean... yeah this clearly sucks ass, but as a silver lining, maybe it'll rebuild interest in nuclear.

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I don't want old ass nuclear power plants. I don't want new power plants in 25 years either. I want a solar panel on every single rooftop, and diversified municipal energy storage (batteries, molten salt, geothermal, etc).

[–] A7thStone@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Old ass nuclear plants work well, and they are already built. I also want solar panels on every house, and micro turbines in every yard. How about we work with what we already know is clean and expand with new technology.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] OmegaLemmy@discuss.online 9 points 10 months ago

It is new... They aren't the original ones that were decommissioned...

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

If they want to run AI in a responsible manner I can't say that I really have any solid complaints. I prefer if they don't use it to train my entire personality into a model but it is what it is

[–] medgremlin@midwest.social 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This is exactly what I've been advocating for. Nuclear power, especially if they lift the restrictions on fuel recycling, is the cleanest option we have besides solar and wind, and it's a technology that is fully developed and available now. Nuclear power is heavily regulated and is very safe these days, and is not reliant on rare earth metals like many solar panels still are.

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You've been advocating for pointlessly wasting the output of an entire nuclear power plant during a time when an urgent decarbonization of energy is needed, to fuel the energy needs of a corporate monopoly running server farms providing a technology that's neither wanted or needed outside of niche use cases, following an online hype mixed with scams and rugpull startups that rival crypto's heydey?

[–] medgremlin@midwest.social 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

My original idea was for the AI companies to shell out for building new nuclear plants, but bringing an old one back online is a step in the right direction. I don't think the current "AI" projects are actually worth the resources they consume, but if they're going to exist, their creators should be shelling out for non-fossil fuel options to power them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

a yes, it's going to be so fun when enshittification hits the power plant and it start leaking radioactive water in the lake

Edit: my issue is with tech companies owning power plants, be it nuclear, oil or gas, enshittification cold fuck all of them and cause catastrophic damage, other than that nuclear power is based

[–] capital@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Safest power source per kWh. This is some boomer-ass scare mongering.

[–] Big_Boss_77@lemmynsfw.com 12 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Is the problem nuclear? Or the problem the fact that Microsoft AI bullshit needs a full ass nuclear power plant to run it?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't fear nuclear power, i fear tech companies especially those public

[–] capital@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Are you under the impression Microsoft will be running it themselves? I don't get it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mdurell@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

They could just burn coal/oil/natural gas instead and for sure poison everything that way. Nuclear has a fighting chance.

[–] TriflingToad@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] coffee_with_cream@sh.itjust.works 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

AI whatever but nuclear yes pls

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Would be incredibly ironic if that thing melted down again and took MS's datacenters with it.

[–] Ibaudia@lemmy.world 45 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It was only a partial meltdown, some cooling systems failed and it was successfully contained! Safety precautions designed to stop a full meltdown and release of radiation succeeded.

I know that's not really the point of your comment but I feel like this particular incident has a lot of misinfo and I wanted to help elucidate what happened.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Exactly. A properly run nuclear plant can be extremely safe.

[–] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

A properly run nuclear plant will also expose people living within a 50 mile radius of the plant to less radiation than if it were a coal fired plant.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] techt@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

This isn't true -- radioactive gases were leaked into the surrounding area. The containment vessel remained intact, and NRC concluded that no measurable harm was done, but there was definitely a release and that's why it was such a big deal. They evacuated children and pregnant women from the area in response.

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2010/ML20106F218.pdf

[–] fubbernuckin@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Nuclear meltdowns are incredibly uncommon though.

[–] ruckblack@sh.itjust.works 9 points 10 months ago

I also don't wish for that. We have enough fear mongering around nuclear power as it is.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›