With all the furor over public officials issuing fiats and sundry proclamations condemning the use of ChatGPT in place of brain cells by our lockdown-battered student populations, I decided to tiptoe around the curtain to ask ChatGPT to pretend to be a constitutional lawyer and pen a legal brief on a particular topic of national interest.
Let me think about it. I wouldn't want cryptic comments made during an interview to interfere with the DOE's good-faith attempt to solve the puzzle.
Mike: The DOE has recently embarked on a $16 million dollar quest to define "consent" and to find communities that might agree to host a storage site for spent nuclear fuel. I applaud this latest, well-funded attempt by the federal government to define and secure consent for a spent nuclear fuel storage site, whether it's proximate to an existing facility or built hundreds of miles away from any reactor. While I commend them for undertaking this task and sincerely wish them all the luck in the world, I am not confident they will ultimately succeed. Having fought radioactive waste battles for most of my professional career, I believe we are a long way away from defining what consent even means. I'll be pleased if they prove me wrong.