The rule in this case would be more like "you need to show a police history with proof you've never committed murder before you're allowed to enter the supermarket".
Warsaw here. I will do everything in my power to keep my kids connected to whatever social networks they want. The state will not be able to censor the internet for my kids.
Also Warsaw here and I'll do everything to keep my kids away from all those trashy "social media" which had been proven to hard society more than helping in anything.
It shorten concentration time significantly, promote false narrative who is successful and who is not and promotes pseudo science
Equivocating children bypassing social media age gates to child rape is disingenuous and asinine.
The point being made is that these age gates are often easily defeated and is impossible to enforce at scale.
Moreover it allows companies to collect a huge amount of bio-metric data which is difficult for users to remove once it is collected. This data has can be and has been exposed.
That chart needs a companion chart showing “amount of effort needed to prevent deaths”. Since that is missing lots of people think nuclear is safe when it’s actually by far the most dangerous.
Such charts exist - they're the "costs per unit" charts; perhaps broken down into (say) capital upfront plant costs, ongoing running costs per unit generated, and decommissioning costs.
It's the decommissioning costs for both nuclear and fossil fuel plants that are most often missing or overlooked.
True enough but there's an order of magnitude difference in those costs. For nuclear the costs extend beyond out ability to predict the future, and they simply can't be ignored whatever they amount to.
A fossil plant can simply be abandoned, and the damage will be minimal compared to abandoning a nuclear plant.
Without this information the chart is repeatedly used as an argument that nuclear power is safe, which is of course the direct opposite of the truth. It is the option that requires the most money and effort to keep safe and nothing is even a close second.
Nuclear power plant after removal of nuclear fuel and decontamination is inert as abandoned fossil plant. Such cleaning at end of life has to be done also for many kinds of chemical plants, chemical storage tanks, otherwise you get a catastrophe like in Bhopal, India.
If you are looking for long term storage of spend nuclear fuel, it's mostly a political issue, not technical issue. In U.S. there is WIPP, in New Mexico, a deep geological repository licensed to store transuranic radioactive waste for 10,000 years. But this is only licensed to store military nuclear waste, not civilian nuclear waste.
There is also hazardeus chemical waste which is stored in underground. The Herfa-Neurode underground landfill ( UTD Herfa-Neurode ) is the world's largest underground landfill for hazardous waste, includes 690,000 tons of waste containing dioxins and furans , 220,000 tons of waste containing mercury , 127,000 tons of waste containing cyanide , and 83,000 tons of toxic waste containing arsenic.
>Nuclear power plant after removal of nuclear fuel and decontamination is inert as abandoned fossil plant.
The site itself sure, but the "removal" just moves the remaining cost somewhere else, it doesn't /re/move it.
The remaining costs for "decommissioned" power plants usually end up with the military. Sellafield in the UK, INL in the US for example.
The problem with the idea of a multi-century stable solution is that we make mistakes. The WIPP facility in the US had a similar cousin in Germany, the Asse II mine. Also planned to be permanent storage until they had to empty it because water found a way in. Several new billions of euros will now be drawn from taxpayers to pay for "decommissioned" plants.
It can be argued that so far, there has been no fully decommissioned, as in "stopped costing any money" nuclear plants, anywhere.
Fossil plants however can be fully decommissioned with 0 remaining costs. Thank god, because that's what we should do of course!
Civil nuclear power plants accumulate funds for decommissioning and disposal of nuclear waste. It's part of the electricity costs. Sellafield in the UK, INL in the US are military/research facilities.
"Asse II: A lesson that is making modern deep repositories safer"
There were reports in 2008 about brine contaminated with radioactive caesium-137, plutonium and strontium. I would be interested about the amounts of these isotopes in the brine, as we can detect extremely small quantities of radioactive isotopes.
For example for caesium-137 we can measure amounts as low as 5 Bq/kg, the decay of 5 atoms of caesium-137 per second in 1 kg of sample.
An adult person usually has activity of 3,000–6,000 becquerels (Bq) of potassium-40. 3,000–6,000 potassium-40 atoms decay and emit a beta particle in adult person every second.
We have developed cheap glass that can be mass produced and sucks electricity from sunshine, can be placed on already occupied surfaces to produce 100x more electricity than we are currently consuming. It requires basically no maintenance or operating costs for decades and is xheap enough for an average home-owner to meet at least half of their electricity needs.
We have also discovered cheap containers that can be built using the fourth most common element in the earths crust to store that electricity for when it's needed.
All of this can be built cheaply, massively, quickly, and be deployed anywhere with no conceivable risks of either massive disasters or proliferation of destructive weapons.
The end result is electricity creation distributed everywhere, so cheap that it's realistic to have small communities provide all the electricity they need. Resilient to failure, sabotage or natural disasters.
Why argue for massive amounts of money, manpower and time being spent to create central power plants that take a decade to build, end up controlled by a few masters who can milk the customers at will forever, when we can have so much better?
Cheap solar, yes you can now buy PV quite cheap. How much of this costs (research, developmemt, building large factories in China) was payed by German EEG money and different subsidies? Also subsidies in form of cheap Chinese coal electricity, polysilicon production is very energy intensive.
Costs estimates for Energiewende are in hudreds of bilions of euros.
>How much of this costs (research, developmemt, building large factories in China) was payed by German EEG money and different subsidies?
This doesn't matter whatever the answer is. Cheap solar is what matters, not how humanity made the breakthrough or who paid for the research or build-out.
Personally, I think China deserves credit here. They made a political decision to develop batteries, solar and EV's as part of their long-term planning several years ago and have been wildly successful with all 3.
That Germany (and most other western nations) failed to do this themselves is unfortunate, but having a sour grapes attitude about it is not constructive. Cheap solar and cheap batteries are here now. All countries should make the most of it as quickly as possible. Particularly Germany, and I'm happy to see Munich getting one of the first Sodium BESS storage facilities from CATL.
China still produced only 11% of electricity from solar, Germany 18%, so in this metric Germany is better, but import all of it PV panels. And electricity only a part of primary energy consumption in both in China and Germany.
I'm interested how China could decarbonize, as they still building a lot of coal power plants. They are slowly decreasing coal electricity production, but ramping up syntetic fuel from coal production.
So if Germany wants to follow Chinas path, they should build a lot of solar, wind, coal, some nuclear and hydro power plants, stop building gas power plants. You don't want it, as coal burning still has significant health impacts in Germany.
Medium-term thinking in Germany is to import a lot oil, natural gas, PV. Long-term thinking in Germany to import a lot of hydrogen, PV. Nobody talks about Germany becomming energy independent.
Best place for batteries for decarbonization is in EVs, not grid stabilization. Even better for decarbonization are electric trains, electric trams, trolleybus, they run directly from electric grid.
>China still produced only 11% of electricity from solar, Germany 18%, so in this metric Germany is better
I think it's more interesting to compare actual production in this case. Here is a truly mindblowing statistic:
China's solar panels already produce more than twice the total amount of electricity consumed by Germany per year.
China's solar growth is equivalent to "one Germany" every 2 years.
Batteries follow a similar curve to solar panels, and I disagree strongly that they should not be used for grid stabilization. In fact, nothing stabilizes the grid better than batteries. They should of course also replace fossil fuels in transportation as well, and that's been happening for years now.
I recall many similar arguments for EV's as we now see for grid storage. "It's too expensive", "We can't make enough batteries". Turns out it wasn't, and we could.
I'm sure we can again, and China is basically proving it repeatedly. All that our politicians in the west need to do is get out of the way, and I'm sure it will solve itself without any further involvement from them.
We will see how the battery costs change over years, currently they are still very expensive for quantities necessary for large grid stabilization in Europe.
But they start to make economic sense in regions with lot of sun and high electricity costs.
In China politicians give the way and whoever is in the way, is removed. It an error of Europe to make itself depend from China. The political system China is the same as in Russia and we can see the result of such dependancy.
>currently they are still very expensive for quantities necessary for large grid stabilization in Europe.
They are at about 100 euros per KWh now, which is small potatoes for the hyperscalers building AI-centers for 10s of billions of euros. How about we demand that any data center being built in Europe needs to provide at least 8 hours of battery backup for max power draw? Most of the time that battery backup will not be needed, and can then benefit the grid.
Google is building multiple 1GW data centers in europe, 8 GWh of battery backup at each of those would stabilize the grid nicely!
>The political system China is the same as in Russia and we can see the result of such dependancy.
Here I agree 100%. We are fortunate that Xi seems relatively benign for a despot but we should not count on that fortune lasting indefinitely. It's imperative that we in the west start making our own solar panels and batteries as quickly as possible.
>With Capex of $125/kWh for BESS, 8 GWh of battery backup would cost about a bilion USD. [..] At this scale there just few projects in the pipeline
Worth noting there is that Google (alone, and they are one of several) are spending around 200 billion on datacenters this year, and that the 125/kWh figure is a year old and calculated from BESS-projects that need to pay for a lot of things the datacenter already pays for.
A datacenter already needs infrastructure to handle a 1GW load, which means it can also deliver 1GW back to the grid. Trucks, cranes, housing, roads and everything else that a BESS-project has to finance separately are already paid for by the datacenter itself. So the "extra cost" would likely be close to the raw cost of the actual battery capacity.
It's therefore reasonable to assume that Google & co would pay a lot less than a billion for 8 hours of runtime on batteries. And they are already spending so much that even the billion is no problem.
For the communities who will give up 10-15% of the nations electricity production per center, it seems like a sensible demand. Google will still grab their cheap electricity but a 8GWh battery would go a very long way to remove the biggest problems with solar and wind, which can then be built out much more aggressively.
You are right about about nuclear weapons, every large nuclear civilian reactor produces multiple bombs worth of plutonium every year, spread within the spend nuclear nuclear fuel. This reactor-grade plutonium has miserable properties for bomb making, but in theory could be used to make a bomb (U.S. experimented with concept and created few bombs from reactor-grade plutonium).
This also the reason why every civilian nuclear reactor in non-nuclear weapon states is under constant monitoring of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and all spend nuclear fuel is under constant monitoring. Every gram of special nuclear material is accounted. Any irregularities detected by IAEA are then handled by United Nations Security Council, with possible diplomatic sanctions or military actions.
Outside of few experiments, civilian power reactors are not used for plutonium production for use in weapons, because to get high quality weapon grade plutonium you have to frequently put nuclear fuel into reactor and out of reactor (every few weeks). This increases down-time and makes electric production more expensive. Also civilian nuclear reactor use high temperature and high pressure steam, this makes change of nuclear fuel under power a risky business.
Plutonium for weapons is produced in smaller, cheaper production reactors. They run at much lower thermal power and are optimized for frequent cycling of nuclear fuel and easy handling of spend nuclear fuel.
Because any spend nuclear fuel could be in theory be used to make a nuclear bomb, U.S. in general doesn't allow countries to develop spend nuclear fuel reprocessing capabilities, or strongly tries to persuaded them not to develop such capabilities. This was a corner stone of U.S. foreign policy for many decades and also the reason why U.S. stopped development of fast-neutron breeder reactors under Carter (they didn't want other countries to pursue this technology).
The long-term U.S. policy for decades was to prevent any kind civilian nuclear power production in developing countries, as written in Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978.
"The United States shall endeavor to cooperate with other nations, international institutions, and private organizations in establishing programs to assist in the development of non-nuclear energy resources, to cooperate with both developing and industrialized nations in protecting the international environment from contamination arising from both nuclear and non-nuclear energy activities, and shall seek to cooperate with and aid developing countries in meeting their energy needs through the development of such resources and the application of non-nuclear technologies consistent with the economic factors, the material resources of those countries, and environmental protection."
Developing countries have been prevented from exploring nuclear power generation but they were free to explore coal power generation.
As a side-note:
The are many countries that developed nuclear weapons before building nuclear power plants, there are countries (Israel, North Korea) which have nuclear weapons today and didn't deliver a single Joule of electricity from nuclear reactor to the electric grid.
> Fossil plants however can be fully decommissioned with 0 remaining costs
You say that, but someone still has to pay those costs which are rarely factored in and are significant.
To the north of my state we are faced with the costs of decommissioning and removal of 35 platforms, 6076 km of pipelines and static umbilicals; 483 subsea lifts; 11 floating facilities, 120 risers and 548 wells to be plugged - in addition to kilotons of offshore steel and concrete.
eg: One project is the Northern Endeavour is a 274-metre floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) facility. The Australian Government took responsibility for the decommissioning of the Northern Endeavour after the liquidation of its owner.
These are non trivial undertakings with costs running into the billions.
You're absolutely correct that oil and gas extraction activities need to be properly decommissioned, and that is expensive.
But that's a separate activity from shutting down electric power plants. Oil rigs will continue to operate even if all gas and oil power plants were shut down tomorrow, since only about 25% of all oil and gas is used for electricity generation.
1. Chernobyl disaster was not related in any way with nuclear plant normal functioning. It was "experiment of how low output reactor can go" proposed and exercised by people without knowledge or experience. It's monument of why government officials should not touch anything related to science
2. Chernobyl nuclear plant was very poor copy of safe by design nuclear plant. It had critical flaw in carbon based proton catching mechanism
3. Closed zone is currently habitable (except Sarcophagus area). You'll receive much higher radiation dose simply by flying to Norway. Nature is returning there, there're plans to repopulate it
4. This was in Soviet Union and power plant was "public". Most of the power plant in EU is public if not every single one. I don't have exact information on this topic
Please do not treat entire technology, which is safe, as a threat simply because some greedy, uneducated people from the past wanted better position and paid ultimate price for it
The Chernobyl disaster wasn't caused by a single person, as you note in your comment "proposed and exercised by people without knowledge or experience."
My employer company go through JavaScript, Java, Golang and at the end landed on Rust for srver side and don't want to change anything. Everything is Rust now, regardless of traffic.
I don't know why you think it's only usable but this is your right.
In 2016 I joined C project initially created in 1999. This project had ~7k lines in gitignore and I learned this only because one of my commit created 2h of email exchange why my code does not compile. Turns out filename was forbidden by one rule.
This one file was more sophisticated than any other file in the project.
It contained "good practices", editors/IDE files of applications dead for more than 10y, personal. /tmp directories in various names, files versioning using suffixes and comments for sections v of rules starting about in half of the file.
This project learned my to keep your own shit in local global gitignore not in project.
You are the very first person I encountered who claim LLM can fix technical debt. Usually I seem comments and articles saying LLM can only produce it. And I can agree with those articles and comments
Here's the result of a prompt that specifically looks for correctness and simplifications to make "by construction" before I added "Design bar: ensure correctness by construction rather than by convention" to AGENTS.md:
I did. Just about all of the findings were re-verified to be good and then implemented by a rigorous pipeline of clankers, and the project was improved.
If it weren't for me insisting that I manually sign off on the solution of every finding, then it would have been fully automated too.
There is a lot of noise out there from anti-AI types who never seriously tried to clean up messes with AI. If you just ask for new features and never look at the code, coding agents will make a mess. If you often ask questions about how to clean up messy code, coding agents are great help for that, too. But you have to ask.
Agents (and humans) don't know what cleanups are safe or a good idea. They can get stuck in loops when different goals (conciseness, performance, etc.) clash. Their "improvements" can break things unintentionally. Targeted improvements can be good. Giant lists of "fix everything" are bad and will break things.
Tech debt comes with insufficient tests, so you won't know what you've broken until too late in many cases.
Yeah that's why step 0 is to tell the LLM to write a test suite for the thing you want to rewrite. It'll do that, but it does require adult supervision. Once you have that test suite, you can send the LLM into an inner dev loop. Like human programmers, LLMs are great when they have a fast inner loop.
The fact that LLMs exist doesn't mean you can just stop thinking. It mean the things you have to think about will be different. You have to treat them as savants with absolutely no ambition.
There’s a trap here though: the LLMs if you let them will spend all their time maintaining that test suite, they can become quite rigid in the way they design them. So it’ll write some code, break a test, which breaks a contract so then it updates the test and the contract but updating the test also broke another contract… soon enough you’re spending all your tokens fixing contracts instead of writing code.
In a sense the LLM having a fast inner loop is its blessing and curse. A blessing because it gets feedback quickly, but a curse because it becomes naval gazing and cannot see the forest for the trees.
At least this is my experience with Sol maby other models behave differently.
I’ll be the second then. I’ve found it’s very good at creating debt but equally good at resolving it. The thing is the default mode is creating debt so you have to intentionally pay it down.
Refactors that used to take me a month now take a week, it’s very handy. You can instruct them to move functions around, change interfaces, add or remove abstractions, remove redundant authorities, untangle spaghetti, rename identifiers across a codebase, and it will return very good results.
Yes like any tool, LLMs can be used poorly. But they do enable large-scale rewrites or poor-quality code because they are capable of understanding it and enumerating its behaviors in a matter of minutes or hours. It's the kind of understanding that would take a human months or years to develop.
Add to that their ability to basically set up what is essentially a perfect testing environment when asked, and you've got a feedback loop that lets you just step back while the agent cranks out a new implementation in a memory-safe language with a full test suite and bug-for-bug compatibility. I'm not kidding or exaggerating. This stuff is possible now, people just need to look past their anxieties about being replaced.
Most short-term learning/adaptation is already handled in-context. Modern context windows can hold several books worth of text - plenty for most tasks. Everybody is already using it to adapt models to their projects through skills/instructions/guides etc. ps. I often say that after glossary-skill next must have one is update-skill-skill that threats all .md files as live documents.
Persistent weight adaptation also happens just not in real time - sessions are captured, analyzed, transformed into training data, fed into SFT/RL environments and later contribute to model updates. Takes a bit of time for the whole loop but you can't say it's not present.
There's nothing fundamentally preventing real-time weight updates, ie. LoRA-style online adaptation would be one obvious approach. It's just generally not worth doing at scale. Updating a shared model centrally gives much better data efficiency, batching, evaluation, control etc. than continuously training a separate set of weights for every user/session.
There is some work happening on narrowing that gap, for example Mistral has been pushing efficient LoRA-based customization, continuous pretraining, model adaptation etc.
I also did play a bit with activation steering – it's super cool where you extract profile for some concepts (emotional in my case) and you have effectively toggles to control "brightness/contrast" those areas (enhancing or suppressing those activation regions from profile) injecting to the model those concepts (emotions in my case) – you can do it in real time and it's fun thing to play with.
My Claude admits mistakes and then fixes them on its own all the time.
Often even without my input: "(thinking..) Oh I discovered that I misjudged XYX, let me fix that.. (thinking) (executing scripts) Okay I corrected my mistake, I had accidentily ABC."
But the current state of AI is a very good indicator were it is going. Even if we don't achieve AGI, do you think AI in its current form will not be better in 5 or 10 years and we will have this solved a lot more/better than today?
Even with AI, you still need to design the software, test it, try it out, deploy it and scale it. An proper agentic platform still needs time to be build.
And the models need to be a little bit better and for that you want human feedback/reinforcement learning
>Even if we don't achieve AGI, do you think AI in its current form will not be better in 5 or 10 years and we will have this solved a lot more/better than today?
In my sector? No, not really. Because the core problem isn't tech, but labor rights. Those will only worsen.
Yes, I don't think this will be a lot better. Newest Claude is barely better, same with the rest of the model. In the same time cost of training new models and running them is increasing so taking this in the account I don't think this'll even last 5y
Really? From what I see everyone are raising prices and even if tokens price is dropping price of running LLM is raising. LLM is highly subsidized and will never be cheaper than human
In Germany, in this case selling shovels if you want to take the example literally is selling construction machines, or renting them, versus having guest workers digging the holes.
Are you aware AI companies are subsidizing usage and have negative revenue?
And now your comparison is inaccurate. I said whole application. So the correct one would be selling/renting construction vehicles vs building entire building and here selling/renting is maybe 10% of developer income.
Digging a hole is like making small code change and if you wish to continue using this analogy then tokens are digging a hole and selling entire applications (thing Software house do) is construction company building entire building
Second obviously deliver more cash and here AI premise starts to crack. AI can't deliver anything good, costs much more than developing team (Uber proved it) and even if you use it as hard as possible and it does what it suppose to deliver max 5% increase across the board
I'm 40yo. Do you know how long I'm waiting? Only taking for an account this newest hype I heard like 4x next year and the current progress is slowing significantly over last year. Even foundings are starting to back off
reply