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.

  • hansolo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    ·
    6 days ago

    It’s just a custom LLM for records management and regulatory compliance. Literally just for paperwork, one of the few things that LLMs are actually good at.

    Does anyone read more than the headline? OP even said this in the summary.

    • cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      I agree with you but you could see the slippery slope with the LLM returning incorrect/hallucinate data in the same way that is happening in the public space. It could be trivial for documentation until you realize the documentation could be critical for some processes.

      • hansolo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        If you’ve never used a custom LLM or wrapper for regular ol’ ChatGPT, a lot of what it can hallucinate gets stripped out and the entire corpus of data it’s trained on is your data. Even then, the risk is pretty low here. Do you honestly think that a human has never made an error on paperwork?

        • cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          I do and even contained one do return hallucination or incorrect data. So it depends on the application that you use it. It is for a quick summary / data search why not? But if it is for some operational process that might be problematic.

    • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 days ago

      It depends what purpose that paperwork is intended for.

      If the regulatory paperwork it’s managing is designed to influence behaviour, perhaps having an LLM do the work will make it less effective in that regard.

      Learning and understanding is hard work. An LLM can’t do that for you.

      Sure it can summarise instructions for you to show you what’s more pertinent in a given instance, but is that the same as someone who knows what to do because they’ve been wading around in the logs and regs for the last decade?

      It seems like, whether you’re using an LLM to write a business report, or a legal submission, or a SOP for running a nuclear reactor, it can be a great tool but requires high level knowledge on the part of the user to review the output.

      As always, there’s a risk that a user just won’t identify a problem in the information produced.

      I don’t think this means LLMs should not be used in high risk roles, it just demonstrates the importance of robust policies surrounding their use.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      5 days ago

      Don’t blame the people who just read the headline.

      Blame the people who constantly write misleading headlines.

      There is literally no “artificial intelligence” here either.

  • besselj@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    6 days ago

    The LLM told me that control rods were not necessary, so it must be true

  • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    Diablo Canyon

    The nuclear power plant run by AI slop is located in a region called “Diablo Canyon”.

    Right. We sure this isn’t an Onion article? …actually no, it couldn’t be, The Onion’s writers aren’t that lazy.

    Fuckin whatever, I’m done for the night. Gonna head over to Mr. Sandman’s squishy rectangle. …bet you’ll never guess what I’m gonna do there!!

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 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
        5 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
          ·
          5 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
        ·
        5 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
          ·
          5 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.”