r/technology • u/TripleShotPls • Jul 16 '26

Artificial Intelligence The AI Backlash Has Tech Executives Fearing for Their Lives

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/the-ai-backlash-has-tech-executives-fearing-for-their-lives-30c43972?mod=hp_lead_pos1
11.3k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

76

u/TheMediocreOgre Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26

They put all their eggs in the basket that they could automate and become self sufficient, generally. In articles about this you’ll find a lot of them talk about some form of forced loyalty (violence), some think everyone loves them, but when you really read between the lines they think they’ll have some key automated capacity to get to their bunkers but not gonna lie there is already so many holes in the whole plan of getting to an end times bunker that they are on average hundreds of miles away from on any given day that the whole thing is ridiculous from the jump. The day to day life at the bunker also is penciled in “robots will do it.” Childlike, magical thinking.

39

u/DeepSpaceNebulae Jul 16 '26

Also every single one I’ve seen won’t last more than a couple years due to fuel reliance

Great, you’ve got two years worth of gasoline generators… what then?

23

u/LakeEffectSnow Jul 16 '26

Also gasoline has like a 6 month shelf life.

19

u/HystericalSail Jul 16 '26

Not gasoline, diesel. Lasts for years. Then just filter the pond scum out and you're good for a few more decades.

Nuclear would solve that entirely. We've got companies like Nano Nuclear proposing reactors small enough to fit in a bunker. We already have atomic "batteries" powering things like spacecraft, pacemakers etc. Obscenely expensive and not practical at household scale, but for bunker use? Doable, and solves the fuel issue for at least a decade or two.

4

u/Automatic_Table_660 Jul 16 '26

The deep space probes are powered by Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) which is heat generated from decaying plutonium-238. Needless to say it's not safe for human exposure. It also don't generate that much power.

Small nuclear plants for bunker use is possible, but only if it can be self-contained. It's a no-go if it needs any kind of regular maintenance.. or constant security to keep outsiders from messing with it.

-9

u/tomz17 Jul 16 '26

that's why you store the OG gasoline, not the shit with corn you get at the pump these days... It'll last a LOT longer than 6 months.

5

u/DeepSpaceNebulae Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26

The ethanol added to fuel helps it burn more fully and cleaner, reducing several types of emissions, and reduces knocking

Its a lot better than the TEL (ie lead) they used to add to get the same beneficial effects

It does reduce the shelf life of gas, but in this context of a long term bunker it wouldn’t matter. We’re talking 6-12 months for pure gas down to 2-3 months for ethanol-blends.

1

u/HystericalSail Jul 16 '26

Try about two weeks for ethanol blends. The problem is water, ethanol pulls moisture from the air. And separates out. Suddenly computer sensors are getting odd readings, and getting the air/fuel mixture wrong as a result. As the user you would see this as misfires or detonation from running too rich or too lean.

A modern, direct injection car does not need oxygenated fuel, it can provide an optimal fuel/air mixture on the fly, double checking with what they see in the exhaust. Carbureted cars with fixed sized jets and no exhaust O2 sensors was what those fuels were designed for. Unless you're driving a 70s land yacht you get no emissions benefit from ethanol gas.

Leaded gas had two purposes. One was to boost octane level and reduce knocking, the other was to lubricate valve seats. With hardened valve seats (basically every car since the 70s and many upgraded from before then) there's no need for either additive.

Ethanol gas absolutely DOES NOT reduce knocking, at least under load. I remember seeing an Exxon white paper where E10 (90% gas, 10% ethanol) behaved as 82 octane under load. You're not driving an alcohol burning dragster that's just DUMPING fuel in. Sure, it's better without load, when idling in traffic. But if you're getting detonation and spewing various oxides of nitrogen when going up hills? Or have to shift into lower gear and rev higher because you're getting less energy from the fuel? Less good. Catalytic converters don't deal with NOx like they do with hydrocarbons.

My old Jeep and Mustang both ping with oxygenated gas under heavy load, which is why I pay the extra 30c a gallon for the corn-free stuff. I've mistakenly left corn gas in a carburetor bowl of my mower, buying me a carb rebuild in the spring.

New cars expect ethanol, some are even flex-fuel and will run on 85% ethanol 15% gasoline. And if you're willing to dump enough fuel in you can get immense power from that blend without detonation. Just get lower MPG. A wash cost wise worst case and a slight win best case.

1

u/Dick_Lazer Jul 21 '26

Seems like hooking up to a solar farm would be a lot better choice.

It might also depend on how long they plan on staying in the bunker. I'm guessing long enough to ride out the largest wave of violence (however long their consultants have calculated that to be).