bull shit
US AI Action Plan
571–580 of 672 posts
Re: US AI Action Plan
#572Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whomever has more nuclear power generation will own energy. The cleanest energy is nuclear.
I really don't understand HN's love affair with nuclear. Uranium mining produces significant toxic waste (tailings and raffinates). Fuel processing produces toxic waste, typically UF6. There is some processing of UF6 to UF4 but that doesn't solve the problem and it's not economic anyway. Fuel usage produces even more waste that typically needs to be actively cooled for years or decades before it can be forgotten abou…
> I really don't understand HN's love affair with nuclear.
s/HN/Individuals
Re: US AI Action Plan
#573Obviously AI is a massive and important area for economic growth. But so is clean energy. And both right now are at an inflection point. It seems the US is going to thrive with the former but naively stick our heads in the sands with the latter. We’ll cede economic leadership, and wonder in 20 years what happened as other countries lead in energy. Even worse, the administrations stance will encourage US energy compan…
Whomever has more nuclear power generation will own energy. The cleanest energy is nuclear.
Nuclear is clean, but has other drawbacks. "Solar+Storage is so much farther along than you think": https://www.volts.wtf/p/solarstorage-is-so-much-farther-alon...
Re: US AI Action Plan
#574Earlier quoted context omitted.
Healthcare in the US is already in very poor shape. Thousands die because of waiting for care, misdiagnosis, or inefficiency leading to magnified costs which in turn leads to denied claims because insurers won't cover it. AI is already better at diagnosis than physicians in most cases.
That's a pretty fantastic claim. Can you provide some links to the body of independent research that backs it up?
There is quite a lot of easy to find information on the web that shows that the US spends twice as much per capita than our European peers and we have worse outcomes, not just on average, but worse outcomes comparing similar economic demographics, including wealthy Americans. We spend $5T a year on health care, or a comparative waste of over $2.5T a year.
Was just listening to this on NPR this morning:
https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/07/08/nx...
The health of U.S. kids has declined significantly since 2007, a new study finds
"What we found is that from 2010 to 2023, kids in the United States were 80% more likely to die" than their peers in these nations
You also do not need the internet to understand what is going on - you just have to interact with our "health" system.
Re: US AI Action Plan
#575Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without providing actual support like money , the government saying they encourage open-* AI is no more meaningful than me saying the same thing. In fact, if you open the PDF file and navigate to that section, the content is barely relevant at all.
We're clearly in an era where the US Govt simply doesn't have enough money to throw at everything it wants to encourage, and needs to develop alternate means of incentivizing (or de-disincentivizing) those things. Sensible minimal regulation is one, there may be others. Time to get creative and resourceful.
AI, which they are hoping takes over EVERYTHING, is probably one of the worthwhile ones for government to be involved in. If it has the chance to be this revolutionary, which would be better:
The government owning the machine that does everything.
Tech bros, with their recent love of guruship, with their willingness to do any dark pattern if it means bigger boats for them, owning the entire labor supply in order to improve the lives of 8 bay area families.
Re: US AI Action Plan
#576Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you put the brine back into the sea, and later put the waste water back into the same sea, doesn't it balance out? Also, the sea is pretty big.
Perhaps, but locally, the higher brine concentration will cause issues.
Yes, hence my use of the word "dispersion". Over a wide enough area, the brine shouldn't have a noticeable impact on sea life. But concentrated release can be really damaging.
Re: US AI Action Plan
#577Obviously AI is a massive and important area for economic growth. But so is clean energy. And both right now are at an inflection point. It seems the US is going to thrive with the former but naively stick our heads in the sands with the latter. We’ll cede economic leadership, and wonder in 20 years what happened as other countries lead in energy. Even worse, the administrations stance will encourage US energy compan…
Overall US Energy production has been expanding, faster, each recent year. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ . This is all before you factor in the recent attention to Nuclear, which could come online within the next decade. The ice caps may be worse off for it, but there's little reason to think the USA will cease to "lead in energy" anytime soon.
I specifically refer to the question of who will own the IP and economic might to lead in the clean energy market. Who will innovate? Who will build industrial capacity and know how, etc. It seems we’ve ceded the field
Not just strict energy production. Especially when it comes from sources of energy increasingly infeasible and unpopular.
Re: US AI Action Plan
#578Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US has long since exhausted it's "easy" oil/gas reserves. Yes, there's tons more down there, but it's increasingly hard to get to. Lots of extraction methods only make sense when the price for oil is above some amount. If the rest of the world standardizes on solar+battery, demand for oil goes down, and so will the price. Which in turn makes US-produced oil not cost effective to extract, and domestic energy produ…
This probably a stupid question but do solar and batteries depend on rare earth metals and their supply?
The quick answer is yes, today. But there are battery technologies that require less and less in development.
Also, rare earth elements are not that rare. But they are not concentrated, and finding concentrations of them is kinda rare. Event then, you have to mine a lot of area to get them, which is not great for the environment. And since Americans (and everyone ex-China) has not been doing it for decades, only China has advanced the technology to extract and refine it for decades.
This lack of refining is similar to our lack of working on solar which will but us behind potentially forever, or until there is a big enough disruption to overcome the decade of experience. You can look at chipmaking and see that such things are not easy.
Re: US AI Action Plan
#579Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whomever has more nuclear power generation will own energy. The cleanest energy is nuclear.
I really don't understand HN's love affair with nuclear. Uranium mining produces significant toxic waste (tailings and raffinates). Fuel processing produces toxic waste, typically UF6. There is some processing of UF6 to UF4 but that doesn't solve the problem and it's not economic anyway. Fuel usage produces even more waste that typically needs to be actively cooled for years or decades before it can be forgotten abou…
Wow. So you really know nothing about the technology and are just spreading fear. The Chernobyl exclusion zone is mostly safe for people now outside of the fact that Russia is current bombing Ukraine.
The issue with cleanup at Fukushima Daichii is one of money and political will, not one of technology. We've had the ability to clean up nuclear accidents since the 1950s.
Also, the future of power is increasingly looking like LNG plants which pump only slightly less radioactive carbon into the atmosphere than coal plants do.
Re: US AI Action Plan
#580Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don't understand HN's love affair with nuclear. Uranium mining produces significant toxic waste (tailings and raffinates). Fuel processing produces toxic waste, typically UF6. There is some processing of UF6 to UF4 but that doesn't solve the problem and it's not economic anyway. Fuel usage produces even more waste that typically needs to be actively cooled for years or decades before it can be forgotten abou…
Wow. So you really know nothing about the technology and are just spreading fear. The Chernobyl exclusion zone is mostly safe for people now outside of the fact that Russia is current bombing Ukraine. The issue with cleanup at Fukushima Daichii is one of money and political will, not one of technology. We've had the ability to clean up nuclear accidents since the 1950s. Also, the future of power is increasingly looki…
Money and political will are in short supply everywhere. Who's to say you'd find it in the US after an accident? And why even bother when solar is cheaper and doesn't come with the same risk?