Waiting for the handful of weird Maga trolls on here to comment. It’s always funny to see them argue “Commander in Chief” means unlimited authority to do anything with the military.

How many trillions of neuron firings and chemical reactions are taking place for my machine to produce an output? Where are these taking place and how do these regions interact? What are the rules for storing and reshaping memory in response to stimulus? How many bytes of information would it take to describe and simulate all of these systems together?

The human brain alone has the capacity for about 2.5PB of data. Our sensory systems feed data at a rate of about 10⁹ bits/s. The entire English language, compressed, is about 30MB. I can download and run an LLM with just a few GB. Even the largest context windows are still well under 1GB of data.

Just because two things both find and reproduce patterns does not mean they are equivalent. Saying language and biological organisms both use “bytes” is just about as useful as saying the entire universe is “bytes”; it doesn’t really mean anything.

You are either vastly overestimating the Language part of an LLM or simplifying human physiology back to the Greek’s Four Humours theory.

If you want to boil down human reasoning to pattern recognition, the sheer amount of stimuli and associations built off of that input absolutely dwarfs anything an LLM will ever be able to handle. It’s like comparing PhD reasoning to a dog’s reasoning.

While a dog can learn some interesting tricks and the smartest dogs can solve simple novel problems, there are hard limits. They simply lack a strong metacognition and the ability to make simple logical inferences (eg: why they fail at the shell game).

Now we make that chasm even larger by cutting the stimuli to a fixed token limit. An LLM can do some clever tricks within that limit, but it’s designed to do exactly those tricks and nothing more. To get anything resembling human ability you would have to design something to match human complexity, and we don’t have the tech to make a synthetic human.

Actually holding platforms accountable for hate speech and propagating dangerous misinfo would solve 90% of the problem. Some shitty guy self hosting his Nazi rants was never the problem. It’s a problem when he’s allowed to push his content directly to users unprompted.

Believe it or not people hated minorities and drank bleach before social media, they just weren’t on the front page.

I assume it’s supposed to mean magically find the raw materials and production somewhere else? These people have no rational thought, they can’t even put 2 and 2 together and see why solar is cheaper.

Why do these people have such frothing opposition to nuclear? You’d think a meltdown killed their whole family, but somehow only at 2% coverage.

They bought the oil lobby’s ancient anti-nuclear propoganda hook-line-and-sinker and don’t care about any of the actual data. But I’m the shill 🙄

Lmfao holy shit you’re dense. You know you can’t just drop wind turbines in any location? That insolation and geography can limit effective solar usage? That nuclear has way more flexibility?

Do you know how to read that chart? Did you notice that the majority of emissions happen upfront during construction of those sources, unlike nuclear which is amortized over its whole life span?

Did you realize that might matter quite a bit when we need to halt/reverse emissions NOW to stop spiraling?

Ignoring all that and you even admit I’m right in the end. Someone here is coping and it definitely isn’t me.

Are you agreeing with me or did you just not read your source?

The best solar technology in the sunniest location has a footprint of 3gCO2/kWh, some seven times lower than the worst solar technology in the worst location (21gCO2/kWh).

Solar averages at 6gCO2/kWh compared to nuclear’s 4gCO2/kWh

Here’s another breakdown of the same data to make it more clear.

By all means, enlighten me. Show me your sources. Everything I’ve looked at shows current gen solar having a larger construction impact and higher lifetime greenhouse gas emissions per unit electricity.

Or is this just your “common sense”? Surely if you have such a strong opinion it’s not based on sound bites and headlines?

It’s very telling that you think I should be more concerned about my backyard and neighbors rather than the billions of people who will suffer while we try to dig our way out of this pit with more palatable tech that can’t do the whole job.

Also funny that you think having a radioactive hole in the ground that loses the majority of its potency in less than 100 years is too high a price to keep our planet habitable. I’d rather be relocated out of my neighborhood than deal with billions of climate refugees moving in. Your NIMBY-ass logic is why our planet is fucked.

Did I miss something or are we moving the goalposts from dirty to hazardous?

The average operating age of nuclear plants in Germany was 30+ years old. Yes they’re not built to modern safety standards. Yes, operating with radioactive materials is more dangerous than not doing that. But they still ended with a minimal impact to climate change over their lifetime.

If you want sensational claims about energy saftey you can write a whole expose about working conditions in Xinjiang, which produces 45% of all of solar grade polysilicone. Are those deaths less important because they didn’t happen in your neighborhood?

So yes, it’s political because a handful of human deaths override an energy technology that is, mathematically, one of the best tools to save our planet. Throwing away nuclear energy because people can get preventable cancer is like throwing away wind energy because an aluminum blade can drop on your head.

Again, efficiency is not the same thing as scalability. You’re optimizing for investment cost (maybe build time? I can’t tell). If we planned/regulated our usage better that’s irrelevant because power usage is predictable.

People won’t need more tomorrow than today unless they make a drastic change. If electricity isn’t cheap and elastic by default, they just won’t buy that high watt GPU or electric car. Bitcoin isn’t such an important social good that it needs instant access to a continent’s worth of power, but it gobbled it up because nobody stopped it.

And even if you do need account for something unpredictable, you can still adjust with other sources. That doesn’t mean they need to be the foundation of your whole grid.

“After all, why wouldn’t we burn billions on a technology that requires destructive mining and large scale plastic waste production for a worse climate footprint? What a solar shill”

See, I too can make emotionally charged statements with no basis in reality. All energy solutions have more nuance than “radiation bad” or “cheap good”

What do people mean by “less efficient” in these conversations? Energy generated is energy generated, the number one efficiency we should talk about is using less of it. Past that you’re just choosing to optimize for cost, ecological impact, carbon footprint, etc…

Well if we’re talking about lifetime carbon footprint, renewables. The drawbacks for nuclear are almost entirely political and economical, but that doesn’t make the technology irrelevant.

Here’s a wrench for you: the Luddites were 100% right

Eminent Domain

Military unilaterally policing civil affairs on US soil

HoW iS tHaT mArTiAL Law??

Just look up the definition you fucking stooge.

“We dragged the Overton window so far to the right that basic facts are political advocacy”

Sensationalist? They give a very clear picture of what the orders were and are a perfect microcosm of how Stalin’s regime operated with the violently anti-communist Nazi’s.

As your well sourced historical analysis states there are plausible reasons for the policy but that doesn’t change the fact that the USSR acted to project and protect its own influence. You don’t get to dress it up as “saviors of Europe” or “benevolent protectors of Poland”.

As for using Russia and USSR interchangeably, I pretty obviously use it due to the outsized russkie influence on USSR policy. Stalin’s USSR was a hard turn from Lenin’s korenisatsiya, Russian culture and interests were first among “equals” (from Stalin’s own mouth). Waxing lyrical about the USSR’s diversity is pretty irrelevant in most conversations and especially here.

And next time you stalk someone’s post history, use a little more critical thinking. In no way do I support just about any of the USA’s foreign policy. I call a spade a spade and operate in real life, outside the confines of internet ideology. You have no clue what I do or don’t do in real life, regardless of what I post. Keep fighting that strawman, trooper, maybe it will go better for you than this thread.