Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its an MoE model so only 37B parameters are activated per token.
MoE models aren’t new. Rumors are that GPT4 was one.
yea specifically 8x220B https://www.latent.space/p/geohot
Jevons paradox
101–110 of 165 posts
Re: Jevons paradox
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but for subtly different reasons. In the case of induced demand, the supply curve shifts to the right (eg number of highway lanes increases) so we move to the right on demand curve (or quantity increases, eg more people drive). On the Jevon's paradox case, efficiency increases (eg fuel efficiency increases), so the _demand_ curve shifts (eg more people people drive).
Ahh so the difference is in a definition of supply. You say drilling more oil is something different than building more efficient cars. I would say in both cases supply of oil increased so there is no real difference.
.... I mean in the case of more efficient cars supply of oil explicitly did not change.
There are meaningful differences in terms of pricing strategies, anticipating demand, etc.
Re: Jevons paradox
#103This is IMO a spefic case of the induced demand concept ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand ).
Induced Demand is a poorly conceived mental model. The concept of "Induced Demand" is easily explained by the default state of the downward sloping demand curve, and upward sloping supply curve. In basic economic theory, if you reduce the cost of a good, more people will consume it. e.g. the classic building a highway example; there was always demand for cheap housing with accessibility to downtowns, but the supply o…
> The concept of "Induced Demand" is easily explained by the default state of the downward sloping demand curve, and upward sloping supply curve. In basic economic theory, if you reduce the cost of a good, more people will consume it.
It is easily explained by that because that is literally the definition of induced demand (see sentence one of wikipedia). The concept has a name because its important to discuss the externalities and long term implications of that additional consumption.
w.r.t your highway example, how you define the market is extremely important and is sensitive to context. The market for "transportation between suburb X and city Y" experiences a durable change in the demand curve as a result of the construction of all that cheap housing. Both market definitions are valid but if your concern is e.g. urban sprawl then contextually one is a lot more relevant than the other. All that said, you can think of the change in the demand curve of market B not as induced demand itself, but as a consequence of realized latent demand (i.e. induced demand) in market A (cheap housing with accessibility to downtown). Alternative solutions to realizing latent demand in Market A (public transit, denser housing, etc.) have different and potentially preferable externalities which is why considering induced demand and its consequences are important.
Re: Jevons paradox
#104>Energy-efficient lighting, such as LED bulbs, has become a popular solution to reduce energy consumption. However, it serves as a notable example of the Jevons Paradox. While LEDs significantly lower the cost of lighting per unit, this reduction often leads to increased usage. For instance, people may install more lights in their homes or businesses, use them for longer durations, or adopt decorative and outdoor lighting more extensively. As a result, the total energy consumption for lighting has not decreased significantly despite the efficiency improvements.
This felt false to me, LED bulbs are generally 10x more efficient, so the average number of lights would have had to increase 10 fold, and this is ignoring the savings from not having AC cool those other 50 watts a bulb that went to heat.
So I took a look at the source, which doesn't actually have a source and just links to another white paper that claims light pollution increased, but is unclear about how much and due to what. Perhaps that whitepaper links to another whitepaper, but this is where I stopped.
Kind of makes me question how often I blindly trust Wikipedia, though this point in particular is pretty minor.
Re: Jevons paradox
#105Doesn't really seem like a Paradox. There may only be 10 people willing to pay $100 for something, but 1000 willing to pay $10 for it, so lower price results in more revenue.
That’s a given. Another counter argument is that’s Nvidia will sell less high margin advanced GPUs that require expensive networking equipment. Problem with that argument is that every competitor gets the benefit of higher efficiency and the baseline will reset back to 0.
The models will all get more efficient, but NVIDIA as the high cost provider of compute (as well as cloud services that use them) - 10x markup on H100s - may not benefit from increased demand. If the models turn out to be a commodity, then low cost providers will be the winners, likely running on chips like TPU and Trainium (Amazon/Anthropic) that don't have the 10x markup.
Re: Jevons paradox
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess my question about the current events is: Are people really locked out of LLMs due to price? It seems like everything already has AI in it and that virtually every end user hates it. I could see a shift to more local models or something, but not an increase. I feel like LLMs have largely been oversold as a solution in search of a problem. Or are people just applying this as everyone and their mothers are going…
Absolutely! Even for inference! The SOTA models for all commercial purposes need to run on a consumer’s device. Running either Grok2 or DeepSeek or even Llama405b requires nearly 400-500gb of memory. Buying a tinybox with enough gpu memory costs $15k-25k. Or equivalently the same if you build your own. A distributed Mac cluster costs about the same, if not more, if you’re buying 2-3 M2 Ultra each with 192gb of memory…
Keep in mind too that to run DeepSeek R1 you'd need 768 GB, so essentially 4 tinyboxes.
Re: Jevons paradox
#107Are people getting hung up on NVDA's fall? It feels like most aren't drawing direct logical links - the Jevons paradox doesn't apply directly to stock prices.
I think the situation is fairly clear with some understanding of finance / equity markets. My analysis of the market and competitive situation:
Deepseek's cheaper LLM services + providing open models for other hosts to provide
=> overall prices for using LLM services will fall due to competition (lower prices + more hosts entering the market); AI users won't pay so much for LLM services
=> the major LLM hosts/providers won't be able to project such high revenues or even have the funds to purchase as many GPUs (they will receive less capital investment to buy GPUs since revenues per dollar invested are lower; their stock valuations will fall)
=> corporate demand for Nvidia cards will fall (AND consumer demand will not rise as much to counteract it for multiple reasons)
On the basis of this possible logic, portfolio managers and algorithms project lower growth/revenue for Nvidia and sell off its stock, setting off the usual chain reaction as other managers notice the downward price action and follow suit in order to stop further losses.
Now, if the new hosts entering the market with lower prices attract significantly more users (instead of merely competing away margins) as we might expect by the paradox, then demand for GPUs might grow instead of shrink instead. If more portfolio managers think this is likely, then it's likely for NVDA's price to recover, and it would be wise to get back into the stock once the worst of the fall is over.
Re: Jevons paradox
#108This is IMO a spefic case of the induced demand concept ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand ).
Induced Demand is a poorly conceived mental model. The concept of "Induced Demand" is easily explained by the default state of the downward sloping demand curve, and upward sloping supply curve. In basic economic theory, if you reduce the cost of a good, more people will consume it. e.g. the classic building a highway example; there was always demand for cheap housing with accessibility to downtowns, but the supply o…
[deleted]
Re: Jevons paradox
#109>Energy-efficient lighting, such as LED bulbs, has become a popular solution to reduce energy consumption. However, it serves as a notable example of the Jevons Paradox. While LEDs significantly lower the cost of lighting per unit, this reduction often leads to increased usage. For instance, people may install more lights in their homes or businesses, use them for longer durations, or adopt decorative and outdoor lig…
Your math is wrong:
> This felt false to me, LED bulbs are generally 10x more efficient, so the average number of lights would have had to increase 10 fold, and this is ignoring the savings from not having AC cool those other 50 watts a bulb that went to heat.
The first 5W also went into heat. Perhaps with the exception of light escaping through a window, *every* watt that goes into a lightbulb comes out as heat for your AC to cool.
I would not be surprised if there were a 10x increase in use of lighting with LEDs.
Not taking Wikipedia (or any source) on blind trust is always wise. More often than not, when you kick tires, you come back to folklore. It's fine for big things, but details are often wrong. Ditto for newspapers, for that matter.
Re: Jevons paradox
#110>Energy-efficient lighting, such as LED bulbs, has become a popular solution to reduce energy consumption. However, it serves as a notable example of the Jevons Paradox. While LEDs significantly lower the cost of lighting per unit, this reduction often leads to increased usage. For instance, people may install more lights in their homes or businesses, use them for longer durations, or adopt decorative and outdoor lig…
This is exactly the case. Anecdotally speaking, growing up in the 90s, I remember my parents adding lightbulbs and fluorescent tube lights to their shopping list every couple of months. We used to have a small stockpile of these in the pantry.
Fast forward to today, the last time I bought lightbulbs for my house was over 5 years ago and that was to upgrade from regular led lamps to Philips hue.