1120
Microsoft Needs So Much Power to Train AI That It's Considering Small Nuclear Reactors (futurism.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
381 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -8 points 2 years ago (3 children)

are you arguing solar is more economical than nucleae cause if so youre wrong by a longshot

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No, you are. Solar is much cheaper than nuclear is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    Yeah, I don't know where nuclear advocates got the idea that their preferred method is the cheapest. It's ludicrously untrue. Just a bunch of talking points that were designed to take on Greenpeace in the 90s, but were never updated with changing economics of energy.

    I can see why Microsoft would go for it in this use case. It's a steady load of power all the time. Their use case is also of questionable benefit to the rest of humanity, but I see why they'd go for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The people who actually put money into energy projects are signalling their preferences quite clearly. They took a look at nuclear's long history of cost and schedule overruns, and then invested in the one that can be up and running in six months. The US government has been willing to issue licenses for new nuclear if companies have their shit in order. Nobody is buying.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yes, because humans in a capitalist society are always well known for making the best decisions possible based on the good of humankind. Nothing else factors in whatsoever.

    For anyone too thick, profit. Profit factors in above literally everything else. And short term profit at that. We shouldn't make decisions of what's best for society based on what massive corporations decide is best for their bottom line.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    If you're implying nuclear would be the better option outside of profit motive, please stop. We have better options now.

    If we cleared every hurdle and started building reactors en mass, it would be at least five years before a single GW came online. Often more like ten. Solar and wind will use that time to run the table.

    Edit: Also, this is a thread about a company dedicating a nuclear reactor to training AI models to sell people shit. This isn't the anti-capitalist hill to die on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent