Training my replacement ?
Another adventure with Large Language Models
I have an urgent article to write, so of course I’m irresistibly moved to do anything else. Following the precepts of creative procrastination, I’ve dealt with a bunch of administrative tasks, done some chores and resisted the urge to dive into social media (until now!). Having done all that, I decided to check on progress in Large Language Models.
What I’ve been interested in since the sudden rise of LLM is whether I could use it to turn out pieces in my own style, recycling and paraphrasing some of the millions of words I’ve typed over my career (my target of 500 words per working day would imply 4 or 5 million in the corpus, not counting blog posts and comments, snarky tweets and who knows how many emails).
We’re not quite there yet, but getting closer. I asked ChatGPT to “Write a critique of SMRs in the style of John Quiggin”
Here’s what I got
Title: "Small Modular Reactors: Big Promises, Bigger Questions"
As the world grapples with the existential threat of climate change, the urgency to transition to sustainable energy sources has never been more pronounced. Among the myriad of proposed solutions, Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) have emerged as a topic of considerable debate. However, a critical examination reveals significant challenges and uncertainties that cast doubt on their viability as a key component of our energy future.
Generated by DALL-E from prompt “produce an image of john quiggin with his brain hooked up to a computer connected in turn to a printer spooling paper. Style dramatic and futuristic, with a comic element”. DALL-E doesn’t do real people anymore, so it went for a generic academic instead.
1. Economic Viability: A Costly Gamble The first and foremost concern with SMRs is their economic feasibility. The nuclear industry has a notorious history of cost overruns and delays. SMRs, while touted as more affordable due to their modular nature, still face the fundamental issue of high capital costs. Unlike renewables, whose prices have plummeted over the past decade, the nuclear sector has not demonstrated a similar trajectory of cost efficiency. The promise of economies of scale with SMRs remains, at best, speculative.
2. Comparison with Renewable Energy: Falling Behind in the Race In the current landscape of rapid technological advancements in renewable energy, SMRs appear increasingly anachronistic. Solar and wind energy have not only become more cost-effective but also more efficient and scalable. The modular advantage of SMRs pales in comparison to the flexibility and scalability of solar panels and wind turbines. Furthermore, the integration of battery storage technology is rapidly addressing the intermittency challenges of renewables, diminishing one of the key arguments in favor of nuclear power.
3. Safety and Regulatory Hurdles: Unresolved Issues Nuclear energy, regardless of the scale, brings inherent safety risks and regulatory complexities. SMRs are no exception. Issues of waste management, potential for accidents, and nuclear proliferation remain unresolved. The smaller size and widespread distribution of SMRs could exacerbate these challenges, raising questions about regulatory oversight and emergency response capabilities.
4. Transition Strategy and Opportunity Costs While some argue that SMRs could serve as a transition technology towards a fully renewable future, this perspective overlooks the opportunity costs. Investment in SMRs is not just a financial commitment but also a diversion of resources and focus away from proven renewable technologies. Given the urgent need for rapid decarbonization, prioritizing a yet-to-be-proven technology with considerable risks seems a misguided strategy.
5. The Political Economy of Nuclear Energy: A Cautionary Tale The push for SMRs must be understood within the broader political and economic context. The nuclear industry, facing a decline in traditional nuclear power plants, is keen to reinvent itself through SMRs. However, public policy should be driven by objective assessments of technological viability and cost-effectiveness, not industry lobbying. The historical track record of the nuclear industry warrants a healthy skepticism of its latest promises.
Conclusion: Proceed with Caution In summary, while the concept of SMRs might hold some appeal, the multitude of challenges they present cannot be overlooked. As an economist with a focus on energy policy, the case for SMRs appears less convincing, especially when viewed against the backdrop of the rapid advancements in renewable energy technologies. The future of our energy system should be grounded in pragmatism and guided by a clear-eyed assessment of costs, benefits, and risks. As it stands, SMRs seem more a diversion than a solution.
My assessment
This is very good. Overall, I’d say at least as good as the average op-ed piece on this topic, which typically contains at least one factual error or logical fallacy, and is often less well-written.
The reference to opportunity costs is particularly striking. I’ve written a whole book (Economics in Two Lessons) about the concept in general, but have only occasionally mentioned it in response to the “all of the above” idea of funding nuclear along with solar and wind, and only in obscure places like comments threads. So, unless this is just a coincidence, Chat-GPT has managed to link me to the idea of opportunity costs, then apply it to nuclear power.
The style isn’t exactly mine, but it’s closer than what sometimes results when an interventionist editor decides to rewrite my work for me. There’s nothing I would insist on striking out, though it’s a bit ponderous in places. I suspect some additional prompts would sharpen it up.
The only critical thing the piece lacks is originality. If I were writing a piece for publication, I’d want to make at least one new point. But it wouldn’t be hard to work in a couple of paras doing this.
As the aphorism has it, “The graveyards are full of people the world could not do without.” But as I contemplate my inevitable mortality, it seems likely that a reasonable facsimile may outlive me. I’m not sure what to think about that.
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.