• vluz
    link
    fedilink
    01 year ago

    Oh my Gwyn, this comment section is just amazing.

  • @EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    551 year ago

    Nuclear power is actually way cheaper.

    You just need to find a geologically safe place to put it and you need to make sure everyone involved follows safety protocols to the letter. And you can’t have anyone cutting corners to save money. You need to spare no expense when it comes to safety.

    The only issue is that people don’t stay strict with keeping everything safe sometimes. People are terrified of it because when something goes wrong, everyone can see the very gruesome results very quickly

    But I don’t think microsoft or any company should be making an AI at the rate they are if it’s going to take as much resources as it seems.

    • prole
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      Coal? Did you miss the nuclear part?

          • @Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Because it literally is. If you knew the exact terms to get the the AI to recreate something in its training data, it could, 1:1. And if you ask it to create you something new, no matter what parameters you use it will look like a mess of garbage data. Generative AI is literally just art laundering just like how Language Models are writing laundering. We tend to use humanizing language but ultimately it’s a machine which uses a bunch of dials and levers to determine how much % a work should resemble one piece in its training at a particular point of the work and how much it should resemble another in another. There’s a reason why a lot of modern image bots have literal fucking watermarks all over their outputs. Because the images were flat out stolen.

            The tech itself is pretty neat, you’re essentially making a virtual brain and having it do useful work, but ultimately all the capitalists running these tools see it as is another method to bring the public under their exclusive and totalitarian control. We could have had a cool roboartist putting out new and unique works but instead we get people losing their job because an inept system hyped up by silicon valley fart huffers claimed it could do their work for free and it only gets worse as these AIs use their own garbage outputs as training data.

            • @regbin_@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              6
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If you knew the exact terms to get the the AI to recreate something in its training data, it could, 1:1.

              That’s because you told it to. Don’t make it recreate existing art then.

              And if you ask it to create you something new, no matter what parameters you use it will look like a mess of garbage data.

              This is not always true. You can train it on a certain style and a photo of a random object, then have it generate an image of the random object in that style. It will “understand” the concept of a style and an object.

              ultimately all the capitalists running these tools see it as is another method to bring the public under their exclusive and totalitarian control.

              Exactly why I’m not supporting the closed source paid services (Midjourney, ChatGPT, Bing Chat, DALL-E etc.) and instead advocate for open source projects like Stable Diffusion and LLaMA.

              • @Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -3
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                That’s because you told it to. Don’t make it recreate existing art then.

                If you took a random concept and explained it to a person they could using their existing knowledge set, draw it somewhat competently. That is because people are able to apply knowledge to make something new. If you told someone to recreate something that already exists, even if they’re a professional, would never be able to recreate it no matter how much time and effort the put into it. AI can do the latter because it’s basically copying, and it can’t do the former because there’s nothing to copy from.

                • @regbin_@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  61 year ago

                  If you took a random concept and explained it to a person they could using their existing knowledge set, draw it somewhat competently. That is because people are able to apply knowledge to make something new.

                  Theoretically it can, but it would involve meticulous and proper labeling of each training data. Currently most of the trained data are automatically labeled and they’re not descriptive/verbose enough. I believe the improvements from the latest version of DALL-E is due to OpenAI’s use of a more advanced image labeler.

  • Nobsi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    241 year ago

    Just fill the Country with Solar, Wind and Water… won’t take 10 years and will be cheaper too.

  • Phoenixz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    71 year ago

    Mega corporations should not be allowed to use nuclear power plants purely for themselves.

    Also, if you need that much power to do something bthat a human brain does with under 100 watts, I really think you’re doing it wrong

    • @Simran@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      221 year ago

      If you’re so smart why don’t you come up with a way to do it under 100 watts???

      Also this is training them not using them. Using an ai consumes significantly less power than the process to train it sort of like how humans take more to learn than to put something in practice.

      • @joemo@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        91 year ago

        Yeap. They are trying to train the AI quickly, not over the course of 18 years.

        Also, it’s early still early for these AI/LLM tools. The first few iterations of things are generally not very efficient. After you can prove it works, THEN you can make improvements to it, make it more efficient, etc.

        However, I think that the approach of feeding in more power instead of optimizing it is the wrong approach. I feel Microsoft could get further ahead of it could find ways to train models more efficiently 🤷

      • @Potatisen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Don’t think the point that’s being made is “smarturr” but rather that stay within the margins of available power.

        • Zima
          link
          fedilink
          01 year ago

          I think his point is that the person he responded to is proposing well meaning feeling based policies without having any real knowledge of any of the negative impacts his policy would have.

      • SineSwiper
        link
        fedilink
        English
        81 year ago

        People tend to forgot the millions of years of horribly inefficient evolution it took to develop the human brain.

    • @Deiv@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      91 year ago

      Why should they not be allowed? Nuclear power plants are great options and will mean less demand on worse energy providing sources

      • @topinambour_rex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        91 year ago

        Because safety and profits aren’t going in the same direction. They would cut corner for reduce the costs. Which is how you end with a nuclear accident. And then it would be to the tax payer to kick the bill.

        • SineSwiper
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -21 year ago

          Microsoft is big enough that government would force them to pay up. There is just too much public pressure for that kind of disaster to get waved away.

          Also, there are nuclear options that are far safer than water-based reactors. WCRs are literally the worst possible design for a nuclear reactor, and we were stupid enough to choose that over dry material reactors in the 60s.

          • @TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 year ago

            Microsoft is big enough that government would force them to pay up.

            Lmao

            Just like they made the banks pay up? Like how they make oil companies pay up?

            Right now it’s commonplace for oil rigs and nuclear plants to be decommissioned on the taxpayer, sometimes entirely funded by them even, rather than by the company.

        • @frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          SMRs are pretty safe. That’s not the issue. It’s that they’re thinking about using a whole fucking nuclear reactor to train AI to sell you shit.

    • @j4k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      191 year ago

      Organic technology is hard. If you can figure out how to grow a compute system you will take human technology hundreds of years into the future. Silicon tech is the stone age of compute.

      The brain has a slow clock rate to keep within its power limitations, but it is a parallel computational beast compared to current models.

      It takes around ten years for new hardware to really take shape in our current age. AI hasn’t really established what direction it is going in yet. The open source offline model is the likely winner, meaning the hardware design and scaling factors are still unknown. We probably won’t see a good solution for years. We are patching video hardware as a solution until AI specific hardware is readily available.

      • @Astroturfed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        I bet it’d be a whole lot easier to grow and organic computer if you didn’t have to worry about pesky things like people thinking you grew genetically engineered slaves.

      • Richard
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        I am so excited for the advances that neuromorphic processors will bring, which is not exactly my field, but adjacent to it. The concept of modelling chips after the human brain instead of traditional computing doctrines sounds extremely promising, and I would love to get to work on systems like Intel’s Loihi or IBM’s TrueNorth! If you think about it, it’s a bit ridiculous how corporations like Nvidia are currently approaching AI with graphics processors. I mean, it makes more sense than general-purpose CPUs, but it is at the very least a subideal solution.

    • no surprises
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      Also, if you need that much power to do something bthat a human brain does with under 100 watts, I really think you’re doing it wrong

      Show me at least 1 person that is capable of doing everything that something like ChatGPT can do.

      • @zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        I would take longer, but I bet I could do it. All ChatGPT does it’s basically regurgitate StackOverflow answers at you, and I’ve been doing that for years in my professional life

        • no surprises
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          All ChatGPT does it’s basically regurgitate StackOverflow answers at you

          All it does, eh? It doesn’t do anything else? I don’t think you’ve ever used ChatGPT. It has more knowledge and capabilities than any single human. Yes, a single human can have more expertise in one or bunch of the topics, but no human brain can have as much general knowledge as ChatGPT. And unlike us, it can improve, there’s no limit.

    • @AdmiralShat@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Almost all nuclear power plants in the US are privately owned and operated. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, this isn’t new

    • @SlopppyEngineer@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      14
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The whole language model scene system started with “we accidently found something that kinda works” and is now in full “somebody please accidently find a way so it uses less power” mode.

  • @constantokra@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    81 year ago

    I’m not one to be all doom and gloom about ai, but giving one its own small nuclear reactor, presumably one that’s in close proximity to it and separate from the local power grid… that’s obviously going to have substantial security measures around it… and be that much more difficult to cut off if need be…

    I mean, it’s starting to sound a lot like an unbelievable plot hole in a bad sci fi movie isn’t it?

    • Richard
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 year ago

      Right, let’s welcome throwing millions or billions of dollars at wasting enormous quantities of concrete and water and at generating highly toxic waste that will irradiate its environment for millennia, and at ripping apart landscapes to extract uranium, I mean that’s such a nice thing, we need much more of it! It’s not like we already have perfectly renewable solutions to providing power…

    • @PlexSheep@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They could just invest in a solar farm or something, they are just a lot more economical.

      Nuclear is okay, but the costs compared to renewables are very high, and you have to put a lot of effort and security into building a reactor, compared to a solar panel that you can basically just put up and replace if it snaps.

      You probably know this discussion already through.

      Edit: Glad to see a nice instance of the discussion going here.

      • @jackpot@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -91 year ago

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

        • @frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          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.

            • @frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              Invest in a next generation technology that is yet unproven, but hopes to solve the financial problems that have plagued traditional reactor projects. And years away from actual implementation, if it happens at all.

          • prole
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            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.

            • @frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              1 year 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.

          • @frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            81 year 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.

      • @Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        221 year ago

        In their specific use case that won’t really work.

        They want to use all of their available property for server racks. Covering the roof with solar won’t give enough power/area for them. A small reactor would use a tiny fraction of the space, and generate several times the power. That’s why it’d be worth the extra cost.

          • @docmox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Raw material is usually a small fraction of the cost of refueling. I would also argue that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is a small blip in the lifetime of a reactor, ~80 years. Transient pricing will have a negligible effect on the LCOE.

          • Richard
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 year ago

            Not only that, imagine how thrilled nature and the environment will be at massive extraction efforts ripping apart landscapes to provide fuel for a method of generating power that is obsolete since at least three decades by now.

            • @docmox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              3
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Don’t need to, just down-blend from the available fuel used from weapons put out of commission as a result of disarmament treaties.

              Now, about those materials used to construct solar panels…

      • @wrinkletip@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -51 year ago

        Sucks to wait for the sun to come out to make Bing answer though. “Disclaimer: Answer dependent on cloud cover or night time”.

            • @FooBarrington@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              I can’t imagine they are. What would the training data of those models be? Why would you train the model when the user sent a request? Why would you wait responding to the request until the model is trained?

              • @frezik@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                Often, these models are a feedback loop. The input from one search query is itself training data that affects the result of the next query.

                • @FooBarrington@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  Sure, but that’s not done with the kind of model this thread is about (separate training and inference). You’re talking about classical ML models with continuous updates, which you wouldn’t run on this kind of GPU infrastructure.

      • @eestileib@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        151 year ago

        For those who haven’t seen this discussion before, I feel like doing the next step in the dance. Cheers Plex.

        It’s important to note that nuclear is capable of satisfying baseload demand, which is particularly important for things like a commercial AI model training facility, which will be scheduled to run at full blast for multiple nines.

        Solar+storage is considerably more unreliable than a local power plant (be it coal, gas, hydro, or nuclear). I have solar panels in an area that gets wildfire smoke (i.e. soon to be the entire planet), and visible smoke in the air effectively nullifies solar.

        Solar is fantastic for covering the amount of load that is correlated with insolation: for example colocated with facilities that use air-conditioning (which do include data centers, but the processing is driving the power there).

        • @FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          0
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          While you are right about baseload being more satisfiable through nuclear, you are wrong that it’s in any way important for AI model training. This is one of the best uses for solar energy: you train while you have lots of energy, and you pause training while you don’t. Baseload is important for things that absolutely need to get done (e.g. powering machines in hospitals), or for things that have a high startup cost (e.g. furnaces). AI model training is the opposite of both, so baseload isn’t relevant at all.

          • @guacupado@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 year ago

            “And you pause training while you dont.” lmao I don’t know why people keep giving advice in spaces they’ve never worked in.

            • @FooBarrington@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              What are you trying to imply? That training Transformer models necessarily needs to be a continuous process? You know it’s pretty easy to stop and continue training, right?

              I don’t know why people keep commenting in spaces they’ve never worked in.

              • @guacupado@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                0
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                No datacenter is shutting off of a leg, hall, row, or rack because “We have enough data, guys.” Maybe at your university server room where CS majors are interning. These things are running 24/7/365 with UU tracking specifically to keep them up.

                • @FooBarrington@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  What are you talking about? Who said anything close to “we have enough data, guys”?

                  Are you ok? You came in with a very snippy and completely wrong comment, and you’re continuing with something completely random.

          • @eestileib@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            It’s not life-critical but it is financially-critical to the company. You aren’t going to build a project on the scale of a data center that is capable of running 24/7 and not run it as much as possible.

            That equipment is expensive, and has a relatively short useful lifespan even if not running.

            This is why tire factories and refineries run three shifts, this isn’t a phenomenon unique to data centers.

            • @FooBarrington@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              It’s not life-critical but it is financially-critical to the company. You aren’t going to build a project on the scale of a data center that is capable of running 24/7 and not run it as much as possible.

              Sorry, but that’s wrong. You’ll run it as much as is profitable. If electricity cost goes up, there is a point where you’ll stop running it, since it becomes too expensive. Even more so considering that AI models don’t have a set goal to reach - you train them as long as you want and can, but training a little bit extra will have diminishing returns after a while.

              That equipment is expensive, and has a relatively short useful lifespan even if not running.

              Not really, the limiting factors in AI training are mostly supply of cards. The cards already in use will stay in use until they fail, they won’t be replaced with newer cards the second they get released.

              This is why tire factories and refineries run three shifts, this isn’t a phenomenon unique to data centers.

              This is comparing apples and oranges, since tire factories:

              • have long-term planning and production goals to reach

              • have employees who must be planned

              • have resource input costs that are higher than electricity

              Of course you want the highest utilisation that you can economically reach, but a better comparison would be crypto mining - which also has expensive equipment that has a relatively short useful lifespan even if not running, and yet they stop mining when electricity is too expensive.

  • Tony Bark
    link
    fedilink
    English
    31 year ago

    While I appreciate them going a greener route, if these chat AIs are still this inefficient to simply train, maybe it is best left to return them back to the research phrase.

      • @Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 year ago

        So it sounds like they need a shitload of GPU power. You know what also costs a shitload of GPU power crypto mining? Could they not outsource the work to all those GPUs that stopped mining crypto once it plummeted?

        I am surprised this hasn’t become a community project already. I assume there is some limitation that I am unaware of.

        • @pivot_root@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          The limitation is intellectual property. You need to model to train it, and no for-profit company is going to just give that away.

          • @Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            But they (MS) are planning on doing it either way, why not crowdsource and even pay a small pittance for the GPU power? I think it would be popular… there are a lot of sad people with extra GPUs sitting around not being used for much.

    • Fidelity9373
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      There’s tradeoffs. If training LLMs (and similar systems that feed on pure physics data) can improve nuclear processes, then overall it could be a net benefit. Fusion energy research takes a huge amount of power to trigger every test ignition and we do them all the time, learning little by little.

      The real question is if the LLMs are even capable of revealing those kinds of insights to us. If they are, nuclear is hardly the worst path to go down.

  • @xantoxis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    81 year ago

    Yesssss

    I don’t give a shit about training AI but the idea of Microsoft running nuclear reactors is hilarious to me. Either they do it well and we all benefit from the knowledge, or Windows goes out with a bang

  • @Havald@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    651 year ago

    Building and maintaining one isn’t really the concern I have with this one, nuclear reactors are incredibly safe these days. What are they going to do with the nuclear waste? That’s the real issue here. Governments can barely figure that out, how’s a megacorp going to do that in an ethical way? I already see them dumping it in a cave in some poor country in africa.

    • oce 🐆
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      Nuclear waste is a technically solved issue with long term geological storage, long term dangerous waste which requires more tech is a very small mass. The problems are political, uneducated people are irrationally scared of those waste that they associate with Chernobyl so they oppose any kind of geological storage, and politicians don’t have the balls to openly contradict them.

    • @lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      161 year ago

      How much nuclear waste are we talking about? Every time I’ve seen any actual quantity mentioned, it’s tiny.

    • @wahming@monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      Weird thing is, I’d trust them to not abandon the reactor during a budget shutdown…

    • Silverseren
      link
      fedilink
      551 year ago

      If they’re actually using a new type nuclear reactor, the small portable ones, then the waste is both incredibly small and recyclable. Nuclear technology has come a long way since the decades old reactors, we just haven’t built very many new ones to showcase that.

      • @Nilz@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        201 year ago

        It’s a shame we aren’t seemingly taking them into consideration in the whole energy transition crisis we are in.

        But rather let’s just keep sending people into hazardous coal mines while ignoring nuclear energy until the solution to all our problems magically comes to us.

        • rush
          link
          fedilink
          English
          161 year ago

          The solutions are there, but 💫capitalism💫

        • Richard
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          What do you mean by this, nuclear of all things is supposed to be the solution? Maybe fusion some day, but definitely not fission. But that’s fine, because we already have a perfectly capable and renewable solution, and that is called wind and solar. The sun is doing fusion every day for us and irradiates the surface of the Earth so much that we could support many multiples of our civilisation.

          • @Nilz@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            I’m not trying to say nuclear is the definitive solution, but it’s certainly a step in the right direction. Progress is progress, we don’t have to find the final solution in one go.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I mean you say that as if just burying it isn’t actually the proven safest option.

      Startups are already beginning to explore using old oil drilling equipment to sink nuclear waste below where it’ll pose a threat, after it’s been suffused into a shitton of concrete of course.

      Very rarely is nuclear waste of the corium toothpaste variety, more often it’s the old hazmat suits that are getting replaced and need to be disposed of with special care, or expired rods you can still have limited contact with without many issues.

    • @frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 year ago

      I’m generally against nuclear–or more accurately, think the economics of it no longer make sense–but there’s one thing I think we should do: subsidize reactors that process waste. It’s better and more useful than tossing it in a cave and hoping for the best. Or the current plan of letting it sit around.

    • @Chailles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 year ago

      Governments can barely figure that out,

      Governments aren’t exactly known for efficiency. A corporation is less likely to bogged down by just the mere fallacy that “other entities can’t figure it out, why should they do it?”

    • @eestileib@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      171 year ago

      As noted elsewhere, these don’t create the same kind of spent fuel as a PWR. So that helps.

      But also, the people who designed the PWRs didn’t just say “and then we’ll make shitloads of unmanageable waste lol!” Up until the Carter Administration, we ran a system called “reprocessing” that essentially shredded and dissolved the old fuel rods, isolated the metals chemically, and packed out separately.

      France does this. Finland does this. Japan does this. Their waste concerns are negligible compared to ours.

      Meanwhile Carter, bless his heart, determined that reprocessing was a proliferation risk, and shut down the US industry, saying “y’all will figure out a way to dispose of these things”.

      So now we are using circular saws to hack these things apart, cramming them into barrels stuffed with kitty litter (you read that right), and hoping that nothing will happen to the barrels for 50 million years?

      Long-term waste disposal became an impossible problem to solve in the US because our one and only allegedly nuclear-savvy president made the solution to the problem illegal. It became one immediately, and has never stopped being one.