Dangers of AI

[ruffrecords]

I see less problems with AI than with nuclear power.

We have the proof nuclear goes wrong, sometimes with devastating results. And the new breeder reactors will halve the volume of some radioactive waste and cut half-life from thousands of years to mere centuries, but those are at least a decade away and don't essentially change the problem.

It is a fact that many many more deaths have been caused by emissions from fossil fuel electricity generation than by nuclear. All technologies are dangerous, some are just more obviously so. We do not ban aircraft but the chances of surviving any aircraft related accident are very very small. Nuclear has other more pressing problems such as the fact there is nowhere near enough fuel in existence to cater for normal reactors.

Edit: Good video on nuclear:



Cheers

Ian

 

[cyrano]

How do you estimate the number of deaths caused by Tsjernobyl? Does it include future deaths?

The death toll in Fukushima was small. Now, they are releasing the radio-active waste water into the ocean. There's no other practical solution and they estimate it's safely diluted. I'm not so sure it's safe. Anyway, the Japanese will probably be the first to find out, in a few generations.

 

[ruffrecords]

How do you estimate the number of deaths caused by Tsjernobyl? Does it include future deaths?

The death toll in Fukushima was small. Now, they are releasing the radio-active waste water into the ocean. There's no other practical solution and they estimate it's safely diluted. I'm not so sure it's safe. Anyway, the Japanese will probably be the first to find out, in a few generations.

Check out the video.

Cheers

Ian

 

[AnalogPackrat]

How do you estimate the number of deaths caused by Tsjernobyl? Does it include future deaths?

Small in comparison to the number who have died in coal mining accidents and from black lung disease. The RBMK reactor design is very old and not very good (high positive void coefficient, positive scram effect, etc.).

The death toll in Fukushima was small. Now, they are releasing the radio-active waste water into the ocean. There's no other practical solution and they estimate it's safely diluted. I'm not so sure it's safe. Anyway, the Japanese will probably be the first to find out, in a few generations.

Proper siting of plants is important. Not building them near fault lines, in tsunami or other flood zones, near volcanoes, etc. seems obvious.

 

[cyrano]

I did, I mostly agree with Sabine Hossenfelder, except for one thing: nuclear waste.

For a densely populated country like Belgium, there is no good way to handle that. We simply don't have space for it. So we need to export that waste. And that comes with a cost. Not only a monetary cost, I'm afraid. What happens when the destination is full, or when the country you export to simply stops accepting waste?

We've seen that happening with plastic and other non-nuclear waste. It was cheap to export that to Nigeria, or China. Both these countries stopped accepting waste from the west cause it simply polluted too much.

Waste is seldom "pure". Waste itself gets polluted because it's waste. Some unscrupulous individuals will mix it with other, more harmful stuff because that's where te money is. The same happens to nuclear waste. Sure, the used nuclear fuel itself will be pure, but there are so many other, less radio-active parts. Clothing, cleaning materials, even medical nuclear waste usually gets tossed in without much thought. And these often don't end up in the best of waste storage places.

And then there are mishaps like Fukushima and Tsjernobyl, rendering large areas uninhabitable for thousands of years. With a growing population, we simply can't waste valuable terrain like that. Developing small reactors will make that problem explode. Russia did that with their nuclear power cells for remote areas. These have been spread allover, after the end of the USSR. They might only contaminate a square kilometer, worst case, but there's 1200 of them allover Russia and probably a few have been knowingly or unknowingly exported elsewhere.

Nuclear is fine if all goes well. In case of war, or decay of government, they become an unknown frightfully fast. What if someone uses one of those to build a dirty bomb?

It seems to me that expensive, not renewable and high risk should be enough not to go in that direction, no?

 

[ruffrecords]

It seems to me that expensive, not renewable and high risk should be enough not to go in that direction, no?

I tend to agree. As I have said before we should spend the vast amounts of cash we waste on climate change and use it to perfect fusion.

Cheers

Ian

 

[cyrano]

She also has a vid about nuclear waste. Interesting, but very little about real life, like dirty bombs made by terrorists. It's logical, since she limits her vids to science.

Thanks for the tip, Ian. I subscribed to Sabine's channel. Lots of interesting science stuff.

 

[ruffrecords]

She also has a vid about nuclear waste. Interesting, but very little about real life, like dirty bombs made by terrorists. It's logical, since she limits her vids to science.

Thanks for the tip, Ian. I subscribed to Sabine's channel. Lots of interesting science stuff.

She is very good and highly fact based. I think you will enjoy her global warming videos.

Cheers

Ian

 

[cyrano]

An unexpected use of AI:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-ai-chatbots-are-disrupting-the-financial-domination-kink

 

[JohnRoberts]

I did, I mostly agree with Sabine Hossenfelder, except for one thing: nuclear waste.

For a densely populated country like Belgium, there is no good way to handle that. We simply don't have space for it. So we need to export that waste. And that comes with a cost. Not only a monetary cost, I'm afraid. What happens when the destination is full, or when the country you export to simply stops accepting waste?

We've seen that happening with plastic and other non-nuclear waste. It was cheap to export that to Nigeria, or China. Both these countries stopped accepting waste from the west cause it simply polluted too much.

Waste is seldom "pure". Waste itself gets polluted because it's waste. Some unscrupulous individuals will mix it with other, more harmful stuff because that's where te money is. The same happens to nuclear waste. Sure, the used nuclear fuel itself will be pure, but there are so many other, less radio-active parts. Clothing, cleaning materials, even medical nuclear waste usually gets tossed in without much thought. And these often don't end up in the best of waste storage places.

And then there are mishaps like Fukushima and Tsjernobyl, rendering large areas uninhabitable for thousands of years. With a growing population, we simply can't waste valuable terrain like that. Developing small reactors will make that problem explode. Russia did that with their nuclear power cells for remote areas. These have been spread allover, after the end of the USSR. They might only contaminate a square kilometer, worst case, but there's 1200 of them allover Russia and probably a few have been knowingly or unknowingly exported elsewhere.

Nuclear is fine if all goes well. In case of war, or decay of government, they become an unknown frightfully fast. What if someone uses one of those to build a dirty bomb?

It seems to me that expensive, not renewable and high risk should be enough not to go in that direction, no?

I have long speculated about dumping nuclear waste into a subsea tectonic subduction zone. While slow moving it would safely secure the waste down under the sea floor.

JR

 

[cyrano]

The real price isn't what is calculated. You need to add these relatively small accidents that cost billions to clean up. Have a look at the numbers:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/video/what-radioactive-fallout-tells-us-about-our-nuclear-future/
It's also the long term pollution we can't clean up. Atm, wild boar in Bavaria have been declared unfit for human consumption because of radio-activity. Tsjernobyl, years after the fact. The reason is wild boars like to eat mushrooms. And mushrooms concentrate radio-activity...

 

[JohnRoberts]

Good AI?

I just watched a 15+ year old sci-fi action movie about an AI jet fighter pilot (Stealth) .

First the AI pilot goes rogue and then it learns empathy and compassion. In the end it commits suicide to save its comrades.

Of course it was fiction.

JR

 

[boji]

All your perception are belong to us...

https://openai.com/sora

 

[JohnRoberts]

I just read a newspaper article this morning about AI starting to replace white collar jobs.

JR

 

[fazer]

George Carlin.

“The earth needed people because it needed plastic. The earth got plastic, now it doesn’t need people”

 

[cyrano]

We're just building a new melting oven to recuperate more metal from nuclear waste. It's necessary because some of these metals have become so scarce that there's no other way.

Investment: 14 billion €, funded by a EU fund for dealing with nuclear waste.

 

[fazer]

Sora AI is pretty stunning. I wonder how long it takes to creat a scene that’s 1min in length like the western town? Brave new world.

 

[Tubetec]

The electronics industry and its pile of needless waste pushes up Co2 consumption per person , The average person in California has a carbon foot print hundreds of times what a person from Bangladesh has over their lifetime .
Even with a 50% drop in co2 ,per person here, which isnt going to be easy but its what were aiming for , we'll still be consuming hundreds of times what people in poorer places do .
How can we reduce our carbon footprint when consumer electronics is practically disposable , what were seeing is it being offset by cheap goods made in China , where the environment and working conditions dont matter .

 

[cyrano]

A positive note: Pozotron (AI for voice-over).

 

[boji]

Ai must have real value if it's to propagate (reign). As well, man creates idols (gods) so to validate and perfect (secular) identity.

https://conversational-leadership.net/multipolar-trap