What's the hard part?

Nuclear build out, wires and transformers.

China has been building 5% extra nuclear capacity every year for the last 30 years. On target for making up 24% of their energy mix in 2060.

Everything I’ve read says their nuclear share is actually declining y/y, due to the crazy growth of renewables. I think that target is out of date?

If they build out wind and solar first then yes, the nuclear share will have declined year over year.

Declining because they’re building out everything else so rapidly. I believe they have 30+ reactors being actively constructed right now.

Sure, I’m just pointing out that 24% share of power being nuke by 2060 is never going to happen now. Renewables got too cheap, and it’s not “on target”

If I have zero wives yesterday and one today, by next week I will need a new house for all my new wives.

Like I said in the original post:

>Even the people who understand the scale don't understand the purpose.

>The Chinese grid isn't renewable or non-renewable. It's built to keep the lights on for anything short of a thousand year catastrophe.

Only capitalists are so penny wise and pound foolish to bet their civilization on the lowest bidder while hoping the inevitable doesn't happen in the next quarter.

I agree with you, china is building risk mitigation in a way that no one else is, and it will serve them well. However, in this thread I’m solely replying to your comment on the “24% nuke by 2060” plan. That particular plan is not going to happen any more, nuclear is not competitive enough, even for china.

I disagree. They’re not going to go the battery energy storage route, instead they will just fill in intermittent gaps in renewable electricity production with nuclear as they ramp down coal.

But where is the evidence to back up this 4D chess move? They have been failing to meet their nuclear roll out plans year after year? Why would they magically hit a ridiculously high goal of 24% by 2060?

4D chess? This is not some memery. They’re essentially building out aiming for a 100% redundant capacity. Renewables and coal are much faster to build, nuclear takes longer (7 years for standardized ones, 10 for newer kinds).

Climate change, and having an abundance of energy allows a country to offset some of those challenges.

Weathering the knock-on effects of ecological overshoot, probably. It's going to be interesting.

Demography. They're soon going to run out of "young" workers, which mean they have to invent the robotics of the 2100s to ensure the few remaining people will have machine to harvest crops and wage wars.

Also, they're soon going to run out of women, so they need to perfect artificial wombs.

The few remaining party elites will want to live practically forever, so biology will be on the programs once fusion and robots have been cracked.

And it doesnot even seem like china will make ussr-level mistakes.

Our only hope for beating China, at this point, would be to recreate an "opium wars" situation where the whole population becomes dumb and stop caring. (A bit like what tiktok and X are doing to use at the moment, but with much more social control.)

> Our only hope for beating China, at this point, would be to recreate an "opium wars" situation where the whole population becomes dumb and stop caring. (A bit like what tiktok and X are doing to use at the moment, but with much more social control.)

Might be more accurate to say that the PRC has successfully done an opium wars situation to the USA with e.g. fentanyl precursors.

I think that the wider industry is living right now what was coding and software engineering around 1 year or so ago.

Yeah you could ask ChatGPT or Claude to write code, but it wasn't really there.

It needs a while to adopt the model AND the UI. As in software are the first one because we are both makers and users.

In general when you try a new tool or methodology you tend to start with a small class to see the results first.

This is not an AI tool, this is a CLI that has very verbose output and documentation.

It can be used by human or by AI agents.

I experiment the same with other mechanisms, and CLI are as effective - if not more effective - than MCP.

Granted, having access to AI I would use AI to run it. But nothing is stopping a manual, human centric, use.

I believe more tools should be written like that.

You don't need AI for it.

You can just install the tool and use it. It is a CLI with very verbose output. Verbose output is good for both humans and AI.

I created something similar, but instead of final oral examination, we do homework.

The student is supposed to submit a whole conversation with an LLMs.

The LLM is prompted to answer a question or resolve a problem, and the LLM is there to assist. The LLM is instructed to never reveal the answer.

More interesting is the concept that the whole conversation is available to the instructor for grading. So if the LLMs makes mistake, or give away the solution, or if the student prompt engineer around it. It is all there and the instructor can take the necessary corrective measures.

87% of the students quite liked it, and we are looking forward to doubling the students that will be using it next quarter.

Overall, we are looking for more instructor to use it. So if you are interested in it please get in touch.

More info on: https://llteacher.blogspot.com/

Good that at least you aren't forcing the student to sign up for these very exploitative services.

I'm still somewhat concerned about exposing kids to this level of sycophancy, but I guess it will be done with or without using it in education directly.

The perspective from an educator is quite concerning indeed.

Students are very simply NOT doing the work that is require to learn.

Before LLMs, homeworks were a great way to force students to approach the material. Students did not have any other way to get an answer, so they were forced to study and come up with an answer to the homeworks. They could always copy from classmates, but that was considered quite negatively.

LLMs change this completely. Any kind of homework you could assign undergraduates classes are now completed in less than 1 second, for free, by LLMs.

We start to see PERFECT homeworks submitted by students who could not get a 50% grade in classes. Overall grades went down.

This is a common pattern with all the educators I have been talking with. Not a single one has a different experience.

And, I do understand students. They are busy, they may not feel engaged by all the classes, and LLMs are a way too fast solution for getting homeworks done and free up some time.

But it is not helping them.

Solutions like this are to force students to put the correct amount of work in their education.

And I would love if all of this would not be necessary. But it is.

I come from an engineering school in Europe - we simply did not have homework. We had frontal classes and one big final exams. Courses in which only 10% of the class would pass were not uncommon.

But today education, especially in the US, is different.

This is not forcing student to use LLMs. We are trying to force student to think and do the right thing for them.

And I know it sounds very paternalistic - but if you have better ideas, I am open.

I think it's a mix of a few things:

- The stuff being covered in high school is indeed pretty useless for most people. Not all, but most, and it is not that irrational for many to actually ignore it.

- The reduction in social mobility decreasing the motivation for people to work hard for anything in general, as they get disillusioned.

- The assessment mechanisms being easily gamed through cheating doesn't help.

It's probably time to re-evaluate what's taught in school, and what really matters. I'm not that anti-school but a lot of the homework I've experienced simply did not have to be done in the first place, and LLM is exposing that reality. Switching to in-person oral/written exams and only viewing written works as supplementary, I think, is a fair solution for the time being.

I will be crucified by this, but I think you are doing it wrong.

I would split it in 2 steps.

First, just move it to svelte, maintain the same functionality and ideally wrap it into some tests. As mentioned you want something that can be used as pass/no-pass filter. As in yes, the code did not change the functionality.

Then, apply another pass from Svelte bad quality to Svelte good quality. Here the trick is that "good quality" is quite different and subjective. I found the models not quite able to grasp what "good quality" means in a codebase.

For the second pass, ideally you would feed an example of good modules in your codebase to follow and a description of what you think it is important.

I am toying with something similar.

However my approach would be to use duckdb and S3 over lambda.

Leaving many of the concerns to the infrastructure. Like basically no OOM. No need to manage servers.

With my partner we have been working to invert the overall model.

She started grading conversation than the students have with LLMs.

From the question that the students ask, it is obvious who knows the material and who is struggling.

We do have a custom setup, so that she creates an homework. There is a custom prompt to avoid the LLM answering the homework question. But thats pretty much it.

The results seems promising, with students spending 30m or so going back and forth with the LLMs.

If any educator wants to Ty or is interested in more information, let me know and we can see how we collaborate.

This makes some sense, but my first question would be how do you define a clear, fair grading rubric? Second, this sounds like it could work for checking who is smart, but can it motivate students to put in work to learn the material?