Comment by IncandescentGas

When I was 5 or so, I was convinced that if I dropped a bowl of hot water into a bucket of cold water, I'd get big explosion. That experiment yielding lukewarm water ended my mad scientist career.

When I was 7 or 8 a friend and I crimped the heads off strike-anywhere match sticks, wrapped them in foil, and struck them with hammers and rocks. They were quite loud, one even set off a sound-activated toy inside the house.

I make no claims as to how well adjusted I am, but I've at least survived 40-odd years of life since then.

Age eleven and had access to a chemistry set that a relative gifted. It had sulfur, but the saltpeter, and charcoal came from elsewhere. The 1960s encyclopedia had the instructions.

Let the kids play.

Thank God they didn't tell a chatbot about their little experiment. Their lives could have been ruined right there if the chatbot operator snitched on them and ordered a SWAT raid on your house.

When I was 24 and a PhD student, I wondered one day if I can eat condensed milk hanging head down.

Never let your age stop your curiosity.

But also learn from other's mistakes (and don't try to eat condensed milk when hanging head down)

When I was younger in rural Appalachia, my local drug store still sold "chemicals" and I purchased salt peter and sulfur and proceeded to attempt to make smoke bombs. Didn't have a double boiler, so attempted to make it in the microwave. Needless to say, it didn't go too well.

I blame my dad though, he found the recipe online and printed it off at work to bring to me.

>Of course. "tried to" being key words in the comment.

Fair enough, I misread your original comment.

The broader point stands that the limitation on creating nuclear weapons and reactors is not knowledge but materials. Even if he himself had a PhD in nuclear physics he still couldn't have built one in his backyard because he wouldn't be able to get the materials. A nuclear physicist can't build a reactor without materials anymore than a pilot can fly without an airplane.

I just love this whole "forbidden knowledge" schtick the AI safety dweebs have stuck up their butt. Is this really going to stop anybody determined enough to make that kind of outcome?

There is an extremely narrow band of things that the AI shouldn't be answering, and that is generally immediately-actionable advice that allows someone to build something of harm to others. But even then, in an age where Tor, bittrent, i2p, abliterated local models, etc are freely available, let alone numerous books and online resources, is there even a point? Is it worth fully compromising the principles of free agency to an increasingly oppressed populace?

But instead of that we are handing the keys to regressive and repressive governments to order the suppression of any knowledge they deem inconvenient. I really doubt anyone is going to take a principled stance when the company's party minders threaten local staff with a rubber hose or incarceration.

I'm sure China et al are already doing this.

For the past 30-40 years humanity has received an incredible gift in these sand-powered thinking brainboxes. A gift that allows the common man to empower himself with a force multiplier towards his own success, and now access to superintelligence the likes of which few have ever seen. These can be tools to destroy the oppression that governs our lives from foolhardy, greedy, bootlicking control freaks. And here we are squandering it.

I think you're picking the wrong example. If I had some sticks, a bit of mud and a few leaves, whether or not I had Claude wouldn't make a difference to my ability to make a nuclear weapon. There are probably better examples of ways where unmediated AI might facilitate something horrible, although probably on a smaller scale.

> A real nuclear engineer with the knowledge he needed would also have said "no, don't do that and I won't help you."

That sounds like what Claude would say unless he was really good at jailbreaking it, which would IMO imply he knew he was chasing after a bad idea.

He would not have succeeded in making a real reactor even with AI, because AI can't magically give you a large quantity of uranium metal! JFC the AI hysteria is unreal.

>A bunch of radioactive stuff together is basically the definition of a nuclear reactor though.

It really isn't.

A pile of radioactive waste isn't a reactor. Marie Curie's notes are famously contaminated with radioactive materials but they aren't a reactor. This is about as close as the boy scout got.

The Oklo fossil reactor is unique because it happened to form in the right circumstances to produce a fission chain reaction, which does make it a reactor. Not every uranium mine is a reactor, in fact this is the only one known.

Waterboarding as in surfing. In water, on a paddle board.