191–200 of 985 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just the same dynamic as old servers. They still work fine but power costs make them uneconomical compared to latest tech.
that was then. now, high-end chips are reaching 4,3,2 nm. power savings aren't that high anymore. what's the power saving going from 4 to 2nm?
[flagged]
I question depreciation. those gpu's will be obsolete in 5 years, but will the newer be enough better as to be worth replacing them is an open question. cpu's stopped getting exponetially faster 20 years ago, (they are faster but not the jumps the 1990s got)
I recently compared performance per dollar for CPUs and GPUs on benchmarks for GPUs today vs 10 years ago, and suprisingly, CPUs had much bigger gains. Until I saw that for myself, I thought exactly the same thing as you. It seems shocking given that all the hype is around GPUs. This probably wouldn't be true for AI specific workloads because one of the other things that happened there in the last 10 years was optimi…
And many pro-level tools (especially in media space) offload to GPU just because of so much higher raw compute power.
So, basically, for many users the gain in performance won't be as visible in their use cases
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if your competitor is running newer chips that consume less power per operation, aren't you forced to upgrade as well and dispose of the old hardware?
It depends on how much profit you are making. As long as you can still be profitable on the old hardware you don't have to upgrade.
> Krishna also referenced the depreciation of the AI chips inside data centers as another factor: "You've got to use it all in five years because at that point, you've got to throw it away and refill it," he said This doesn't seem correct to me, or at least is built on several shaky assumptions. One would have to 'refill' your hardware if: - AI accelerator cards all start dying around the 5 year mark, which is possib…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone should read his argument carefully. Ponder them in silence and accept or reject them in based on the strength of the arguments.
His argument follows almost directly, and trivially, from his central premise: a 0% or 1% chance of reaching AGI. Yeah, if you assume technology will stagnate over the next decade and AGI is essentially impossible, these investments will not be profitable. Sam Altman himself wouldn't dispute that. But it's a controversial premise, and one that there's no particular reason to think that the... CEO of IBM would have an…
Tho he's probably not too happy that they sold the server business to Lenovo, could at least earn something on selling shovels
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
A broad social safety net makes a huge difference. It’s not just housing it’s socialized medicine, paid family leave, good transit, free high quality education, solving fewer problems with police and more with social support programs and social workers, free meal programs for adults and children in schools, libraries, and a variety of other programs that help ensure people don’t fall through the cracks here or there.…
It was quite obvious that AI was hype from the get-go. An expensive solution looking for a problem.
The cost of hardware. The impact on hardware and supply chains. The impact to electricity prices and the need to scale up grid and generation capacity. The overall cost to society and impact on the economy. And that's without considering the basic philosophical questions "what is cognition?" and "do we understand the preconditions for it?"
All I know is that the consumer and general voting population loose no matter the outcome. The oligarchs, banking, government and tech-lords will be protected. We will pay the price whether it succeeds or fails.
My personal experience of AI has been poor. Hallucinations, huge inconsistencies in results.
If your day job exists within an arbitrary non-productive linguistic domain, great tool. Image and video generation? Meh. Statistical and data-set analysis. Average.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Ship them somewhere else, then print a banner saying, "mission accomplished." It worked at a state level for years, with certain states bussing their homeless to other states. And recently, the USA has been building up the capability to do the same thing on an international scale. That's the "solution" we are going to be throwing money at. Ship them to labor camps propped up by horrible regimes.