Modern AI data centers consume enormous amounts of power, and it looks like they will get even more power-hungry in the coming years as companies like Google, Microsoft, Meta, and OpenAI strive towards artificial general intelligence (AGI). Oracle has already outlined plans to use nuclear power plants for its 1-gigawatt datacenters. It looks like Microsoft plans to do the same as it just inked a deal to restart a nuclear power plant to feed its data centers, reports Bloomberg.

      • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        You know, that actually makes sense. Fusion is so energetic and probabilistic in nature, plus it’s effectively “charged fluid dynamics” and there are an impossible number of variables to handle. That’s literally the kind of shit AI is great at.

        Fission though? Not so much

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yes in a research lab. Here we’re talking about Microsoft.

        Have you ever used something they made? Did it meet your standard of being “good work”? No. It’s a greedy, soulless cash grab disguised as software that infects the entire organization and disables common sense.

        M$ actually running a nuclear plant is a guaranteed disaster. Blue Screen of Death.

        • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          They’re not running it, though. They’re making a deal with the owners (an actual nuclear power company) who are going to run it themselves and sell Microsoft the output.

        • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Have you ever used something they made? Did it meet your standard of being “good work”?

          I mean you’re ignorance of the products that they build or work on doesn’t precipitate their badness. Let’s start with the entire developer ecosystem that they have their hands deep in, it’s a pretty damn good ecosystem.

          You probably need to check your bias because it’s leaking, negatively affecting your decision making.

          Any company of this size is going to have shit products great products and literally thousands and tens of thousands of projects in between. You seem to be familiar with one product line, of hundreds or even thousands.

          • Optional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            *your*

            And how long have you watched Microsoft do what they do? Is it more than five years? 10? 20? 30? Really?

            You can genuflect to the Ballmers all you want but their less-sucky products are still the best garbage one of the most profitable businesses in the history of earth can provide.

            I’m not talking about UX, or code that doesn’t crash. I’m talking about that and the purpose of it. Good software serves the purpose of the user. Micro$oft software serves Micro$oft primarily - and often exclusively. Then there’s the monopolistic practice they have of buying innovation and crushing it beneath their heel.

            Whatever “ignorance” of their products I have has been very deliberately cultivated. Glad you like VS, you’ll benefit Microsoft through it in at least one, or many, ways.

            And none of what they do is different from how they’ve always been. Their self-serving greed was on full display from the day Bill Gates started demanding payment for his software that others had been freely sharing with him. Feel free to remain in thrall to them.