ChatGPT 4o isn’t even the most advanced model, yet I have seen it do things you say it can’t. Maybe work on your prompting.

Exactly this. Things have already changed and are changing as more and more people learn how and where to use these technologies. I have seen even teachers use this stuff who have limited grasp of technology in general.

FreeTube breaks regularly and doesn’t have support for higher resolutions.

Steam I am guessing

Can you link a source that isn’t pay walled?

Believe it or not you can turn a reactor off if necessary, or up and down. Crazy I know.

Biomass isn’t practical as it releases far too much emissions to be worth it, you almost might as well use gas. Actually thinking about how much land use it would take, it might actually be worse than gas overall. Biomass is only really sensible when talking about material we would waste anyway like food waste and other waste that can be burned, but that would barely make a dent in our energy needs.

Not everything is about economics, otherwise we probably wouldn’t be talking about renewables at all.

As for “free energy”, no energy is free. Solar panels and wind turbines still have a finite life span. Nuclear fuel is cheap enough to the point where it too might as well be free if we are willing to call wind turbines free. This is especially true for Thorium technology or actinide burners. Actinide burners literally reuse nuclear waste.

Not really, no.

Have you actually looked at the data? You might be surprised.

As opposed to the ever so clean extraction and storage of nuclear fuel? Come on.

Yes actually. Uranium mining isn’t nearly as bad as needing tons of lithium, cobalt, and who knows what that goes into solar panels. Thorium containing materials are literally a byproduct of other mining operations that gets thrown away.

From what I gather, wind is on par with nuclear. Other renewables have slightly more than either wind or nuclear, but compared to the other nonrenewable alternatives either option is far better.

Nope. Wind generates 11 tons of CO2 where Nuclear only makes 6. Solar isn’t even close. Biomass is the worst of the renewables and is closer to fossil fuels in its pollution levels than the other clean sources of energy.

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

And all of this leaves out the most important aspect - nuclear is incredibly expensive compared to renewables, and is trending more expensive each year, while renewables are trending in the opposite direction. This means that for the same amount of resources, we will be able to displace more nonrenewables, leading to a net reduction in deaths/emissions pursuing this route as opposed to nuclear.

Is it? Most people aren’t factoring the cost of energy storage. No one is suggesting Nuclear as the only source of energy. It is very helpful though for grid firming and reducing the amount of expensive and environmentally destructive energy storage therefore reducing the overall cost of operating the grid while increasing reliability and reducing land usage and environmental damage.

While the upfront investment in reactors is large, the cost per energy produced and ongoing costs are quite low. Lower in many cases than fossil fuels like gas. Plus reactors last longer than solar panels and wind turbines.

Of course, I have nothing against fully privately funded nuclear. If private actors can make the economics work under safe conditions, then nuclear construction is an obvious net positive. When they displace public investment in renewables, however, then they are a net negative.

What happened to the idea that renewables didn’t need public funding anymore? If it’s really so cheap as you say that wouldn’t be necessary.

The reality is both renewables and nuclear needed huge state investments to get off the ground.

That’s a lie. Renewables produce more CO2 than Nuclear reactors per unit energy produces. They can also be significantly more dangerous (higher number of deaths per unit energy) in the case of hydro power or biomass. Solar and batteries require various rare materials and produce significant pollution when manufactured and must be replaced every 20 or 30 years.

AGI and ASI are what I am referring to. Of course we don’t actually have that right now, I never claimed we did.

It is hilarious and insulting you trying to “erm actually” me when I literally work in this field doing research on uses of current gen ML/AI models. Go fuck yourself.

If and until the abilities of AI reach the point where they can compensate tech illiteracy and we no longer need to worry about the exorbitant heat production, it shouldn’t be deployed at scale at all, and even then its use needs to be scrutinised, regulated and that regulation is appropriately enforced (which basically requires significant social and political change, so good luck).

Why wouldn’t you deploy that kind of AI at scale?

To be honest I think people keep forgetting that AI strong enough would be smarter than a human, and would probably end up deploying us at scale rather than the other way around. Terminator could one day actually happen. I am not even sure that would be a bad thing given how flawed humans are.

It seems basic logic like this doesn’t actually work on these people. Most really can’t get their heads around the fact that energy costs money and companies want to use less of it wherever possible and practical to do so.

I didn’t realize coal plants were concerned about data centers or AI. TIL.

What? How does that relate to anything I just said?

But in the interest of being slightly less of a dick and responding to what you said even though it’s kinda a non sequitur, companies are only vaguely interested in efficiency.

How is it a non sequitur? If anything the thing you just said makes no sense. Energy is probably the biggest cost these companies have. This I believe is true even for regular data centers and cloud services which is why they always try to use the latest most energy efficient hardware. It’s still not as bad as most anti-AI people seem to believe, mainly because the most energy intensive part happens only once per model (training).

I think it’s more accurate to say that AI is hot for everyone right now so there’s more eyes on it which makes the concept you laid out valid. Where it’s invalid in my experience is that efficiency is just based on “where x executive is paying attention” not an honest attempt to look at return on investment in a rigorous way across the enterprise.

Human labour is expensive. So trying to replace it with AI, even if AI is also expensive, is typically still worth it.

You talk about experience, but I honestly don’t think you have any. Do you actually work in tech? What are your qualifications? Most of the people coming here to complain about this stuff don’t actually have a functional understanding of the thing they are complaining about.

Mainly because energy and data centers are both expensive and companies want to use as little as possible of both - especially on the energy side. OpenAI isn’t exactly profitable. There is a reason companies like Microsoft release smaller models like Phi-2 that can be run on individual devices rather than data centers.

I don’t think you have interpreted that correctly. People tend to reinstall when changing versions, for example from Ubuntu 22.04 to 24.04. That isn’t the same as doing updates.

Honestly if you are that worried about updates breaking stuff, you might be better off using an immutable distro. These work using images and/or snapshots so it’s easy to rollback if something goes wrong. It’s also just less likely to go wrong as you aren’t upgrading individual packages as much, but rather the base system as a whole. Both Fedora and Open Suse have atomic/immutable variants with derivatives like Universal Blue providing ready to go setups for specific use cases like gaming and workstation use.

Alternatively the likes of Debian rarely break because of updates as everything is thoroughly tested before deployment. Gentoo and void are the same deal but in rolling release format so they are at least somewhat up to date while still being quite well tested.

People see AI and immediately think of ChatGPT. This is despite the fact that AI has been around far longer and does way more things including OCR and data mining. It’s never been AI that’s the problem, but rather certain uses of AI.

Yes, blink is the engine Chromium uses. Since KHTML was an open source project any project based on it will have to be open source, unless of course it’s just used as a library. Even in that case though blink the engine is forced to be open source even if the browser as a whole isn’t. GNU licenses are considered infectious because anything containing any GNU code automatically and legally becomes open source. So KHTML being unmaintained is irrelevant.

If I remember correctly it’s under a copy left license which makes sense given it’s ultimately a derivative of KHTML.

Yeah so I also use CachyOS on a couple things and one of them also uses Cachy Browser.

Don’t Firefox and Chromium already have that?