Scientists at Princeton University have developed an AI model that can predict and prevent plasma instabilities, a major hurdle in achieving practical fusion energy.

Key points:

  • Problem: Plasma escaping containment in donut-shaped tokamak reactors disrupts fusion reactions and damages equipment.
  • Solution: AI model predicts instabilities 300 milliseconds before they happen, allowing for adjustments to keep plasma contained.
  • Significance: This is the first time AI has been used to proactively prevent tearing instabilities in fusion experiments.
  • Future: Researchers hope to refine the model for other reactors and optimize fusion reactions.
  • Nobody@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    56
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    What happens when the AI hallucinates and suddenly needs to Chernobyl the plant to fix a hallucinated emergency?

    • dbilitated@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      72
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      the reaction stops and there’s no fissile material anywhere.

      this is the whole point of fusion. they didn’t have fusion at Chernobyl.

      we don’t think you’re some sage for knowing AI can hallucinate, and this isn’t a large language model so hallucinations aren’t even remotely relevant. much like Chernobyl.

    • masterspace@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      58
      ·
      7 months ago

      Nuclear fusion can’t Chernobyl, even if it were to fuck with the machine and cause it to break, the instant it broke the reaction would stop because it’s not self sustaining without a massive magnetic containment field.

      • Nobody@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        76
        ·
        7 months ago

        Forgive me if I think any kind of nuclear reaction should not be handled by what we’re calling “AI.” It could hallucinate that it’s winning a game of chess by causing a nuclear blast.

        • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Putting aside your lack of knowledge of nuclear energy and AI systems, do you honestly think scientists are stupid enough to give a non-deterministic system complete control over critical systems? No, they are merely taking suggestions from it, with hard limits on what it can do.

        • orclev@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          7 months ago

          Setting aside the matter of “AI”, this is a fusion reactor, not fission, so there’s no scenario in which this can possibly cause an explosion. The absolute worst case scenario is that containment fails and the plasma melts and destroys the electromagnets and superconductors of the containment vessel before dissipating. It would be a very expensive mistake to repair and the reactor would be out of commission until it was fixed, but in terms of danger to anyone not literally standing right next to the reactor there is none. Even someone standing next to the reactor would probably be in more danger from the EM fields of a correctly functioning reactor than they would be from the plasma of a failed one.

          • Nobody@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            48
            ·
            7 months ago

            Error builds upon error. It’s cursed from the start. When you factor in poisoned data, it never had a chance.

            It’s not here yet because we aren’t advanced enough to make it happen. Dress it up in whatever way the owner class can swallow. That’s the truth. Dead on arrival

            • Buttermilk@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              28
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              It seems like you are building on criticisms of LLMs and applying them to something that very different. What poisoned data do you imagine this model having in the future?

              That is a criticism of LLMs because new generations are being trained on writing that could be the output of LLMs, which can degrade the model. What suggests to you that this fusion reactor will be using synthetic fusion reactor data to learn when to stop itself?

            • Syntha@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              7 months ago

              Me, when I confidently spread misinformation about topics I don’t even have a surface level understanding of.