• NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    requires an intensive carbon footprint

    Maybe we should focus on the collapsing ecosystem then instead of training AI datasets.

        • Stuka@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          Ok, find someone willing to pay for one for that purpose.

          Microsoft isn’t ‘we’

        • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          No. Nuclear power is not anti climate like the other fossil fuels, but still anti ecosytems.

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          9 months ago

          You’re free to invest in nuclear power for that purpose if you want.

          Microsoft is investing in nuclear power to run their AI projects. They likely wouldn’t be investing in nuclear power if they didn’t have projects that needed it like this.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            And the U.S. government wouldn’t have invested in all of the development that went into the Apollo program if they didn’t want to beat the Russians, but we still all benefitted from the science and the research and the development.

      • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Nuclear power still requires huge front costs (goal of SMR is to reduce that, but first generations will not solve it), so it could be better to use them for every day life needs rather than a prospective commercial venture.

      • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        Only if there’s a meltdown, and that’s near-impossible with current reactor designs. Just don’t build in very disaster-prone areas like Florida or Japan.

      • Rayspekt@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        9 months ago

        People aren’t listening to human scientists and you think they’ll be happy with an scary AI saving the planet?

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          If they’re not listening to humans or AI, then they’re not going to be happy with anything and should probably be ignored.

            • FaceDeer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I doubt the people running the country are worried about a “scary AI saving the planet.” Their main concern is ignorant masses of voters who are scared of it.

        • MxM111@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          It will be used for both. The way out of global warming is going forward in technology, not backward.

      • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        We already use AI in climate change models. This is a large language model that honestly, we don’t need.