this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
84 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1286 readers
187 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago

And instead of replacing fossil fuels, we're using it to power the AI pet projects of billionaires...

[–] joelfromaus@aussie.zone 12 points 6 days ago

“We’re restarting the Three Mile island reactor and renaming it! [pause for effect] to Copilot!”

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 8 points 6 days ago

I hear they actually are planning to build a new campus there. They think they’ll create supersmart mutants to build their next gen AIs

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 2 points 5 days ago

This feels like the start of an Outer Limits episode.

[–] itsonlygeorge@reddthat.com 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, this is gonna turn out well. What could possibly go wrong connecting an AI to a nuclear reactor in a populated area?

[–] self@awful.systems 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] itsonlygeorge@reddthat.com 4 points 5 days ago

Terminator 2 but with Fallout 2 style super mutants.

[–] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 18 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Interesting as old nuclear plants are always said to be expensive to operate due to maintenance and old technology issues. Microsoft must really be in a bind to go for an expensive and uncertain supply.

[–] maol@awful.systems 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I assume this is pr to distract from their increasing use of fossil fuels

[–] gerikson@awful.systems 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yeah but Three Mile Island? Seriously?

Now it's possible that the MSFT press release gave it a more anodyne name and the press sussed out where it was, but still.

[–] maol@awful.systems 6 points 5 days ago

Well, it's a hell of a distraction!

Augh, augh, I'm starting to sound like one of those conspiracy nuts who think Beyoncé times her album releases to distract people from what the illuminati are getting up to. Time to stop....

[–] sus@programming.dev 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Advanced bayesian estimations show that the risks of a nuclear plant that is not yet operational are very low. And the chance that they will still be employed at microsoft (after the bubble pops) by 2028 is exceedingly low, reducing effective risk significantly !

[–] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I was thinking of the economics as opposed to the safety aspects. Seems an expensive option.

[–] corbin@awful.systems 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Nuclear power has fairly predictable amortized returns. I imagine that this is worth the cost to MS over the next two decades or so; we have no idea what their current energy premium is like, and this plant doesn't have to be as cheap as a new plant, just cheaper than the current premium.

[–] Greyghoster@aussie.zone -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If it was cheaper than the current premium, I expect that the plant would still be in operation, however as I don’t know the numbers so it must be worthwhile.

[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 4 points 4 days ago

Constellation Energy shut down the Unit 1 reactor in 2019 — not the one that melted down in 1979, the other one — because it wasn’t economical. Inflation Reduction Act tax breaks made it viable again

almost like it was literally in the article