this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59651 readers
2691 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is something wrong with your tech if you need your own nuclear plant to run it.
I mean, it's better than coal, but still.
I'm all right with it really because it doesn't really matter. Radioactive material isn't really dangerous at least in any sensible context and it doesn't really put out a lot of carbon so if Microsoft want to restart nuclear power station then I don't really have any objection.
As to whether they need to be doing this is another question, but the fact that they're doing it at all doesn't really bother me.
There's always the outside possibility that they decide that the nuclear power station isn't enough and end up building a Dyson Sphere or something.
It puts out literally zero carbon. Once you build a nuclear plant it's 100% green after the construction
Well it does put out some carbon because the extraction and refining processes are not carbon zero, but there are considerably less than coal or gas.
I think it's the responsible thing to do, sure, but I feel like there's a problem of scalability with LLMs. That was more of my point.