For now, the artificial intelligence tool named Neutron Enterprise is just meant to help workers at the plant navigate extensive technical reports and regulations — millions of pages of intricate documents from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that go back decades — while they operate and maintain the facility. But Neutron Enterprise’s very existence opens the door to further use of AI at Diablo Canyon or other facilities — a possibility that has some lawmakers and AI experts calling for more guardrails.

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    to people who say it’s just paperwork or whatever it doesn’t matter: this is how it begins. they’ll save a couple cents here and there and they’ll want to expand this.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        it’s not actually. there’s barely an intermediate step between what’s happening now and what I’m suggesting it will lead to.

        this is not “if we allow gay marriage people will start marrying goats”. it’s “if this company is allowed to cut corners here they’ll be cutting corners in other places”. that’s not a slope; it’s literally the next step.

        slippery slope fallacy doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to connect A to B.

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          You may think it’s as plausible as you like. Obviously you do or you wouldn’t have said it. It’s still by definition absolutely a slippery slope logical fallacy. A little will always lead to more, therefore a little is a lot. This is textbook. It has nothing to do with companies, computers, or goats.

      • TheOakTree@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        True, but it you change the argument from “this will happen” to “this with happen more frequently” then it’s still a very reasonable observation.

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          All predictions in this vein are invalid.

          If you want to say “even this little bit is unsettling and we should be on guard for more,” fine.

          That’s different from “if you think this is only a small amount you are wrong because a small amount will become a large amount.”