Much like spaceflight, aerospace or nuclear engineering, you need to retain local talent for national defense purposes. Being 70% as good is still way better than being 100% dependent and heavily leveraged by your opponents.
Much like spaceflight, aerospace or nuclear engineering, you need to retain local talent for national defense purposes. Being 70% as good is still way better than being 100% dependent and heavily leveraged by your opponents.
It gets a little weird when you start thinking of AI like that, because AI is very corporately based in the US and China, but not as heavily that when from a talent position.
Demis Hassabis and Google's Deep Mind are all British in terms of location/talent, but they certainly aren't from a coorporate perspective (Deep Mind work might happen in London, but it is owned by Google, as US company)
(I don't know a lot about nuclear/aerospace industries, I'm guessing there more location centered just in virtue of being based around physical things, but I could be wrong)
Being 70% as good in nuclear engineering sounds scary AF. How would you rank Chernobyl? Better or worse than 70%?
Being 70% as good does not mean causing accidents. Accidents are caused by systematic operational failures and fundamental design flaws.
If your employees are only 70% as good, as skilled, as knowledgeable while not knowing it, then you can absolutely kill a reactor just like Chernobyl. The overconfidence is what allowed them to put the reactor in the state they did and not realize the implications.
Far worse than 70%. Chernobyl was a catastrophically flawed reactor design. Operators ran a badly planned safety test in which operators intentionally caused a dangerous state while key protections were disabled or bypassed.
Exactly, the intelligence/competence of the engineers running the plant had no actual bearing on the incident.
Chernobyl was basically Russia then. The more honest comparison would be the numerous nuclear power plants in France.
70%… Not great, not terrible.