Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: How can ChatGPT serve 700M users when I can't run one GPT-4 locally?

news.ycombinator.com

221–230 of 379 posts

Re: Ask HN: How can ChatGPT serve 700M users when I can't run one GPT-4 locally?

#221
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The servers may well be worthless (or at least worth a lot less), but that's pretty much true for a long time. Not many people want to run on 10 year old servers (although I pay $30/month for a dedicated server that's dual Xeon L5640 or something like that, which is about 15 years old). The servers will be replaced, the networking equipment will be replaced. The building will still be useful, the fiber that was pulle…

I have a server in my office that's at from 2009 still far more economical to run than buying any sort of cloud compute. By at least an order of magnitude.

Perhaps if you only need to run some old PHP app.

What kind of disk and how much memory is in there?

Re: Ask HN: How can ChatGPT serve 700M users when I can't run one GPT-4 locally?

#222

I think the most direct answer is that at scale, inference can be batched, so that processing many queries together in a parallel batch is more efficient than interactively dedicating a single GPU per user (like your home setup). If you want a survey of intermediate level engineering tricks, this post we wrote on the Fin AI blog might be interesting. (There's probably a level of proprietary techniques OpenAI etc have…

This is the real answer, I don't know what people above are even discussing when batching is the biggest reduction in costs. If it costs say $50k to serve one request, with batching is also costs $50k to serve 100 at the same time with minimal performance loss, I don't know what the real number of users is before you need to buy new hardware, but I know it's in the hundreds so going from $50000 to $500 in effective costs is a pretty big deal (assuming you have the users to saturate the hardware).

My simple explanation of how batching works: Since the bottleneck of processing LLMs is in loading the weights of the model onto the GPU to do the computing, what you can do is instead of computing each request separately, you can compute multiple at the same time, ergo batching.

Let's make a visual example, let's say you have a model with 3 sets of weights that can fit inside the GPU's cache (A, B, C) and you need to serve 2 requests (1, 2). A naive approach would be to serve them one at a time.

(Legend: LA = Load weight set A, CA1 = Compute weight set A for request 1)

LA->CA1->LB->CB1->LC->CC1->LA->CA2->LB->CB2->LC->CC2

But you could instead batch the compute parts together.

LA->CA1->CA2->LB->CB1->CB2->LC->CC1->CC2

Now if you consider that the loading is hundreds if not thousands of times slower than computing the same data, then you'll see the big different, here's a "chart" visualizing the difference of the two approaches if it was just 10 times slower. (Consider 1 letter a unit of time.)

Time spent using approach 1 (1 request at a time):

LLLLLLLLLLCLLLLLLLLLLCLLLLLLLLLLCLLLLLLLLLLCLLLLLLLLLLCLLLLLLLLLLC

Time spend using approach 2 (batching):

LLLLLLLLLLCCLLLLLLLLLLCCLLLLLLLLLLCC

The difference is even more dramatic in the real world because as I said, loading is many times slower than computing, you'd have to serve many users before you see a serious difference in speeds. I believe in the real world the restrictions is actually that serving more users requires more memory to store the activation state of the weights, so you'll end up running out of memory and you'll have to balance out how many people per GPU cluster you want to serve at the same time.

TL;DR: It's pretty expensive to get enough hardware to serve an LLM, but once you do have you can serve hundreds of users at the same time with minimal performance loss.

Re: Ask HN: How can ChatGPT serve 700M users when I can't run one GPT-4 locally?

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone's take on AI was that we're collectively investing billions in data centers that will be utterly worthless in 10 years. Unlike the investments in railways or telephone cables or roads or any other sort of architecture, this investment has a very short lifespan. Their point was that whatever your take on AI, the present investment in data centres is a ridiculous waste and will always end up as a huge net loss…

They probably are right, but a counter argument could be how people thought going to the moon was pointless and insanely expensive, but the technology to put stuff in space and have GPS and comms satellites probably paid that back 100x

It's not that going to the Moon was pointless, but stopping after we'd done little more than planted a flag was. Werner von Braun was the head architect of the Apollo Program and the Moon was intended as little more than a stepping stone towards setting up a permanent colony on Mars. Incidentally this is also the technical and ideological foundation of what would become the Space Shuttle and ISS, which were both also supposed to be little more than small scale tools on this mission, as opposed to ends in and of themselves.

Imagine if Columbus verified that the New World existed, planted a flag, came back - and then everything was cancelled. Or similarly for literally any colonization effort ever. That was the one downside of the space race - what we did was completely nonsensical, and made sense only because of the context of it being a 'race' and politicians having no greater vision than beyond the tip of their nose.

Re: Ask HN: How can ChatGPT serve 700M users when I can't run one GPT-4 locally?

#224
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean 10 years? You can pick up a DGX-1 on Ebay right now for less than $10k. 256 GB vRAM (HBM2 nonetheless), NVLink capability, 512 GB RAM, 40 CPU cores, 8 TB SSD, 100 Gbit HBAs. Equivalent non-Nvidia branded machines are around $6k. They are heavy, noisy like you would not believe, and a single one just about maxes out a 16A 240V circuit. Which also means it produces 13 000 BTU/hr of waste heat.

Fair warning: the BMCs on those suck so bad, and the firmware bundles are painful, since you need a working nvidia-specific container runtime to apply them, which you might not be able to get up and running because of a firmware bug causing almost all the ram to be presented as nonvolatile.

Are there better paths you would suggest? Any hardware people have reported better luck with?

Re: Ask HN: How can ChatGPT serve 700M users when I can't run one GPT-4 locally?

#225
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Famine in the modern world is almost entirely caused by dysfunctional governments and/or armed conflicts. Engineers have basically nothing to do with either of those. This sort of "there are bad things in the world, therefore focusing on anything else is bad" thinking is generally misguided.

Famine is mostly political but engineers (not all of them) definitely have to do with it. If you’re building powerful AI for corporations that are then involved with the political entities that caused the famine, then you can’t claim to basically have nothing to do with it.

I totally disagree. "If A is associated with B, and B is associated with C, and C causes D, then A is responsible for D" is tortured logic.

Re: Ask HN: How can ChatGPT serve 700M users when I can't run one GPT-4 locally?

#226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain what you mean about 'not needing to be solved'? There are versions of that kind of critique that would seem, at least on the surface, to better apply to finance or flash trading. I ask because scaling an system that a substantially chunk of the population finds incredibly useful, including for the more efficient production of public goods (scientific research, for example) does seem like a problem tha…

I think the problem I see with this type of response is that it doesn't take into context the waste of resources involved. If the 700M users per week is legitimate then my question to you is: how many of those invocations are worth the cost of resources that are spent, in the name of things that are truly productive? And if AI was truly the holy grail that it's being sold as then there wouldn't be 700M users per week…

> If the 700M users per week is legitimate then my question to you is: how many of those invocations are worth the cost of resources that are spent, in the name of things that are truly productive?

Is everything you spend resources on truly productive?

Who determines whether something is worth it? Is price/willingness of both parties to transact not an important factor?

I don't think ChatGPT can do most things I do. But it does eliminate drudgery.

Re: Ask HN: How can ChatGPT serve 700M users when I can't run one GPT-4 locally?

#227
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unspoken context there is that the inference isn't the thing causing the losses.

Inference contributes to their losses. In January 2025, Altman admitted they are losing money on Pro subscriptions, because people are using it more than they expected (sending more inference requests per month than would be offset by the monthly revenue). https://xcancel.com/sama/status/1876104315296968813

So people find more value than they thought so they'll just up the price. Meanwhile, they still make more money per inference than they lose.

Re: Ask HN: How can ChatGPT serve 700M users when I can't run one GPT-4 locally?

#228
post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends where your electricity comes from. If you're burning fossil fuels to make electricity, that's only about 40% efficient, so you need to burn 2.5x as much fuel to get the same amount of heat into the house.

Sure. That has nothing to do with the efficiency of your system though. As far as you are concerned this is about your electricity consumption for the home server vs gas consumption. In that sense resistive heat inside the home is 100% efficient compared to gas furnace; the fuel cost might be lower on the latter.

Sure, it's "equally efficient" if you ignore the inefficient thing that is done outside where you draw the system box, directly in proportion to how much you do it.

Heating my house with a giant diesel-powered radiant heater from across the street is infinitely efficient, too, since I use no power in my house.

Re: Ask HN: How can ChatGPT serve 700M users when I can't run one GPT-4 locally?

#229
post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Famine is mostly political but engineers (not all of them) definitely have to do with it. If you’re building powerful AI for corporations that are then involved with the political entities that caused the famine, then you can’t claim to basically have nothing to do with it.

I totally disagree. "If A is associated with B, and B is associated with C, and C causes D, then A is responsible for D" is tortured logic.

You can disagree all you want but the exact wording used in original comment that I responded to was

> Engineers have basically nothing to do with either of those.

The logic here is “If A is actively working to develop capabilities for B, which B offers up to C who then uses it to do D, then A cannot claim to have nothing to do with D.”

Re: Ask HN: How can ChatGPT serve 700M users when I can't run one GPT-4 locally?

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even is the AI bubble does not pops, your prediction about those servers being available on ebay in 10 years will likely be true, because some datacenters will simply upgrade their hardware and resell their old ones to third parties.

Would anybody buy the hardware though? Sure, datacenters will get rid of the hardware - but only because it's no longer commercially profitable run them, presumably because compute demands have eclipsed their abilities. It's kind of like buying a used GeForce 980Ti in 2025. Would anyone buy them and run them besides out of nostalgia or curiosity? Just the power draw makes them uneconomical to run. Much more likely ev…

I have around a thousand broadwell cores in 4 socket systems that I got for ~nothing from these sorts of sources... pretty useful. (I mean, I guess literally nothing since I extracted the storage backplanes and sold them for more than the systems cost me). I try to run tasks in low power costs hours on zen3/4 unless it's gonna take weeks just running on those, and if it will I crank up the rest of the cores.

And 40 P40 GPUs that cost very little, which are a bit slow but with 24gb per gpu they're pretty useful for memory bandwidth bound tasks (and not horribly noncompetitive in terms of watts per TB/s).

Given highly variable time of day power it's also pretty useful to just get 2x the computing power (at low cost) and just run it during the low power cost periods.

So I think datacenter scrap is pretty useful.

Post reply on HN