I don't think the lack of originality is easily dismissed. It's why I read this blog, not for bromides about opportunity cost.
I was a bit skeptical about the style, so I asked it to do the same task, but this time in the style of Andrew Bolt (see below). That convinced me it's doing solid work on style. It makes me wonder if there could be a somewhat useful intellectual tool in getting ChatGPT to argue against you to anticipate any obvious objections. I won't spam the comments any further, but "Write in support of SMRs in the style of John Quiggin" is revealingly bland - you really struggle to employ your usual style of careful argumentation.
"Andrew Bolt is known for his conservative views and outspoken style, often favoring a skeptical stance on certain issues. Keep in mind that the following critique is an attempt to emulate his style and may not reflect my own opinions.
Title: Small Modular Reactors (SMRs): A Risky Gamble for Australia
In the ever-expanding world of energy solutions, Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) have emerged as the latest darling of the green energy enthusiasts. However, before we get swept away by the hype, it's crucial to take a step back and scrutinize the potential pitfalls of embracing these miniature nuclear power plants.
Proponents of SMRs argue that they are the panacea to our energy needs, offering a supposedly safer and more versatile alternative to traditional nuclear power. But let's not be so quick to jump on the SMR bandwagon without considering the potential downsides.
First and foremost, the cost of these so-called "small" reactors is anything but small. Proponents conveniently downplay the exorbitant upfront expenses, conveniently forgetting that we're not exactly swimming in surplus cash. Australia cannot afford to embark on a high-stakes nuclear experiment without reassessing its financial priorities.
Moreover, the touted safety benefits of SMRs are not as foolproof as they may seem. While advocates claim that their compact size makes them inherently safer, it's essential to remember that accidents can happen, regardless of scale. The nuclear industry has a track record of underestimating risks, and we can ill-afford to play Russian roulette with our energy future.
Environmental concerns also linger over the production and disposal of nuclear waste. SMR enthusiasts conveniently overlook the fact that managing and storing radioactive materials pose significant challenges. Australia should be wary of becoming a dumping ground for nuclear waste, with long-lasting environmental consequences.
The hype around SMRs as a solution to climate change is equally questionable. The time and resources spent on developing and implementing these reactors could be better invested in proven renewable technologies that are already making strides globally.
In conclusion, the rush to embrace Small Modular Reactors is fueled more by ideological fervor than pragmatic reasoning. Australia must tread cautiously, scrutinize the true costs, and prioritize proven, sustainable energy solutions that align with our economic and environmental interests. Blindly succumbing to the SMR craze may leave us with more problems than solutions.
I like it! Re what you say about referencing/hyperlinking, I've asked ChatGPT a couple of times, in different ways, to cite the best (it helps to set criteria for what constitutes 'best') source of a particular proposition, and it will do that (sometimes) one proposition at a time. Sometimes it point blank refuses - on one occasion, it's refusal to provide the location, author, or name of a source document led me to conclude it had invented the document it purported to be paraphrasing.
My comment is that it is not clear what decision point this is aimed at. Who is supposed to do what as a result of reading this? A federal or local regulator? An investor? A project analyst? A legislator deciding on the rate of tax on net CO2 emissions/shadow price of net emissions to include in the CBA of a project that produces or reduces net CO2 emissions?
A specific point, why would cheap enough nuclear power be a "transition" to anything else? Or does this mean part of a mix of technologies that would be more or less economical in different niches?
Certainly rather ponderous but it's in line with what you would say. Striking that there is no evidence or data backing up the claims. And the lack of originality makes it quite boring. But it does hold out hope that our AI offspring will one day - perhaps soon - surpass us. And we can enjoy our retirement while delighting in the achievements of our progeny.
And it's the most boring job so it's the job I most want the AI to do, but currently it's the job the AIs do least well. (I do love the fact that it's adopted the human habit of making up a reference when it can't find the right one!).
As I already mentioned (comment above) ChatGPT doesn't do hyperlinks. But opinion pieces in print newspapers don't source their claims either, and when online papers do hyperlink they are mostly to other stories on the same sites.
Your comment would have more force if you could point to an assertion that is false, or even hard to verify. I couldn't see one.
It wasn't hyperlinks - more that it doesn't mention any data points - Nuscale, large nuclear, sizes of recent grid batteries in Australia, percentage of renewables in Australia this year. It has taken valid arguments and not supported them.
I don't think the lack of originality is easily dismissed. It's why I read this blog, not for bromides about opportunity cost.
I was a bit skeptical about the style, so I asked it to do the same task, but this time in the style of Andrew Bolt (see below). That convinced me it's doing solid work on style. It makes me wonder if there could be a somewhat useful intellectual tool in getting ChatGPT to argue against you to anticipate any obvious objections. I won't spam the comments any further, but "Write in support of SMRs in the style of John Quiggin" is revealingly bland - you really struggle to employ your usual style of careful argumentation.
"Andrew Bolt is known for his conservative views and outspoken style, often favoring a skeptical stance on certain issues. Keep in mind that the following critique is an attempt to emulate his style and may not reflect my own opinions.
Title: Small Modular Reactors (SMRs): A Risky Gamble for Australia
In the ever-expanding world of energy solutions, Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) have emerged as the latest darling of the green energy enthusiasts. However, before we get swept away by the hype, it's crucial to take a step back and scrutinize the potential pitfalls of embracing these miniature nuclear power plants.
Proponents of SMRs argue that they are the panacea to our energy needs, offering a supposedly safer and more versatile alternative to traditional nuclear power. But let's not be so quick to jump on the SMR bandwagon without considering the potential downsides.
First and foremost, the cost of these so-called "small" reactors is anything but small. Proponents conveniently downplay the exorbitant upfront expenses, conveniently forgetting that we're not exactly swimming in surplus cash. Australia cannot afford to embark on a high-stakes nuclear experiment without reassessing its financial priorities.
Moreover, the touted safety benefits of SMRs are not as foolproof as they may seem. While advocates claim that their compact size makes them inherently safer, it's essential to remember that accidents can happen, regardless of scale. The nuclear industry has a track record of underestimating risks, and we can ill-afford to play Russian roulette with our energy future.
Environmental concerns also linger over the production and disposal of nuclear waste. SMR enthusiasts conveniently overlook the fact that managing and storing radioactive materials pose significant challenges. Australia should be wary of becoming a dumping ground for nuclear waste, with long-lasting environmental consequences.
The hype around SMRs as a solution to climate change is equally questionable. The time and resources spent on developing and implementing these reactors could be better invested in proven renewable technologies that are already making strides globally.
In conclusion, the rush to embrace Small Modular Reactors is fueled more by ideological fervor than pragmatic reasoning. Australia must tread cautiously, scrutinize the true costs, and prioritize proven, sustainable energy solutions that align with our economic and environmental interests. Blindly succumbing to the SMR craze may leave us with more problems than solutions.
I'm glad you still prefer the original to the copy!
Ok, I promise I'll stop now, but "Write a critique of SMRs in the style of Jon Ronson" is just perfect.
I tried it and it was fun
I like it! Re what you say about referencing/hyperlinking, I've asked ChatGPT a couple of times, in different ways, to cite the best (it helps to set criteria for what constitutes 'best') source of a particular proposition, and it will do that (sometimes) one proposition at a time. Sometimes it point blank refuses - on one occasion, it's refusal to provide the location, author, or name of a source document led me to conclude it had invented the document it purported to be paraphrasing.
Thank you for enabling me to convince myself that N-Power is not required in Australia
I'll always remember it.
And this is what Google bard generated (3 drafts):
https://g.co/bard/share/6a820c9cc42d
https://g.co/bard/share/59b19494fdee
https://g.co/bard/share/0d7110ac5f21
Fun, but definitely not in my voice.
Still amazes me how many people argue these LLMs can't produce stuff like this.
That article isn't bad at all!
Stepping beyond the personal - we all like to think we're indispensable - new opportunities are going to come to light pretty fast
My comment is that it is not clear what decision point this is aimed at. Who is supposed to do what as a result of reading this? A federal or local regulator? An investor? A project analyst? A legislator deciding on the rate of tax on net CO2 emissions/shadow price of net emissions to include in the CBA of a project that produces or reduces net CO2 emissions?
A specific point, why would cheap enough nuclear power be a "transition" to anything else? Or does this mean part of a mix of technologies that would be more or less economical in different niches?
Certainly rather ponderous but it's in line with what you would say. Striking that there is no evidence or data backing up the claims. And the lack of originality makes it quite boring. But it does hold out hope that our AI offspring will one day - perhaps soon - surpass us. And we can enjoy our retirement while delighting in the achievements of our progeny.
It would be easy to hyperlink to support for most of the claims. ChatGPT won't do this, so that's one job left for humans to do.
And it's the most boring job so it's the job I most want the AI to do, but currently it's the job the AIs do least well. (I do love the fact that it's adopted the human habit of making up a reference when it can't find the right one!).
The ChatGPT article lacks data & evidence - it's bald assertion
As I already mentioned (comment above) ChatGPT doesn't do hyperlinks. But opinion pieces in print newspapers don't source their claims either, and when online papers do hyperlink they are mostly to other stories on the same sites.
Your comment would have more force if you could point to an assertion that is false, or even hard to verify. I couldn't see one.
It wasn't hyperlinks - more that it doesn't mention any data points - Nuscale, large nuclear, sizes of recent grid batteries in Australia, percentage of renewables in Australia this year. It has taken valid arguments and not supported them.