www.lesswrong.com/posts/6YxdpGjfHyrZb7F2G/third-wave-ai-safety-needs-sociopoliti...
2 corrections found
And now it's at this crazy level of what, 50% or something?
Recent official OECD data puts total (all-levels) U.S. general government expenditures at 39.1% of GDP in 2023, not ~50%. Federal outlays alone were 23.4% of GDP in FY2024.
Full reasoning
The post suggests U.S. government spending is “what, 50%” of GDP.
That does not match standard official measures:
- All levels of government (general government): The OECD’s Government at a Glance 2025 country note for the United States reports: “In 2023, the United States had expenditure levels of 39.1% of GDP…”. That is far below 50%.
- Federal government only: The U.S. Treasury/OMB joint statement on FY2024 budget results reports FY2024 outlays at 23.4% of GDP, also nowhere near 50%.
Even allowing for the speaker’s conversational tone (“or something”), 50% is materially inconsistent with these official figures.
2 sources
- Government at a Glance 2025: United States (OECD)
OECD country note: “In 2023, the United States had expenditure levels of 39.1% of GDP…” (general government expenditures across all levels of government).
- Joint Statement ... on Budget Results for Fiscal Year 2024 | U.S. Department of the Treasury
FY2024 Actual: Outlays $6.752T; “Percentage of GDP … Outlays 23.4%.”
basically no matter what the price, you just need to make nuclear safer.
ALARA does not mean “make it safer no matter the cost.” The U.S. NRC definition explicitly requires considering the economics of improvements and other societal factors when reducing radiation exposure.
Full reasoning
The post describes ALARA ("as low as reasonably achievable") as if it mandates making nuclear “safer” regardless of cost.
However, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s glossary (citing 10 CFR 20.1003) defines ALARA in a way that explicitly incorporates economic and other considerations. In particular, it requires making “every reasonable effort” to keep exposures as low as practical taking into account (among other things) “the economics of improvements … and other societal and socioeconomic considerations.”
So, ALARA is not a “no matter what the price” mandate; it is a reasonableness / cost-benefit–constrained standard by definition.
1 source
- ALARA | Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NRC (10 CFR 20.1003) defines ALARA as maintaining exposures “as far below the dose limits as practical” while “taking into account… the economics of improvements… and other societal and socioeconomic considerations.”