I am very skeptical about the long term viability of generalist ‘AI’, by which I mean the things like LLMs that are currently being marketed as being AI even though they are very much not.
There’s going to be amazing work done by carefully trained specialist engines or agents focused on specific problems, there’s some really great stuff about extremely early cancer detection from machine-learning processing of medical imaging, just as one example. But these things are tools, not employee replacements.
But I think the broader applicability is questionable. The hallucination problem isn’t going away, and that makes human oversight of the great majority of LLM output mandatory whenever there’s possible negative consequences, so cost savings are questionable. And the hallucination problem CAN’T go away as long with the current tech. LLMs and the like are inherently hamstrung by inability of conceptualise or understand purpose. They’re parrots, they make cool noises but don’t understand what the say, and can’t evaluate it. They’re much better at fooling people into thinking they’re intelligent rather than being intelligent.
The point is they’re meant to conduct a completely independent study without bias, but instead they’ve adopted Labour’s energy policy as fact and manipulated their outcomes to support it.
Wouldn’t you rather they have no bias and instead had your best interests instead of the ministers?
I thought political parties based their energy policies on studies by scientific and economic bodies. Not the other way around. Although I do note that the LNP prefer to dismiss any studies, even ones they’ve commissioned, on the viability of nuclear should they reflect unfavourably - which they inevitably do because it’s a farking ridiculously stupid piece of ■■■■ policy.
Interested in the detail you possess that proves AEMO based their findings on Labor policy though. That would be unconscionable.
That would be IF globally EVs could saturate the car market. They can’t cause the infrastructure does not exist to charge the vehicles & won’t for a long time.
Added to that I don’t even think the resources like copper exists to make the batteries needed.
Manufacturers estimate that a modern wind turbine will last between 20 to 25 years.
They require a lot of maintenance over that period, so maybe they’ve invested a lot to make sure they reach a good lifespan. Either way they’re doing pretty well. Maybe its because they weren’t built in China?
I play golf with a bloke that has been maintaining the Mount Mercer wind farm since day dot. He said 18 years on average and I guess not all wind farms use the same components/materials, I know the Mount Gellibrand & Mercer farms have huge blades, are very high so the stresses involved may be different to the one built at the turn of the century that is much smaller
The blades also usually end up in landfill/buried…not exactly sustainable.
Also they’re usually on private land and a lot of these energy companies have told the land owners that the responsibility of disposal will fall on them. Apparently it can cost 500k to decommission.
Big businesses just taking regular folks for a ride.