51–60 of 122 posts
> You don’t “train a human.” In this context, "train" a human makes perfect sense.
>>It also takes a lot of energy to train a human
as a caveat to the energy it takes to train GPTs. The question I believe the writer is trying to ask is: Why is it better to train a GPT than a human?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anthropic treating models like people is cringe and frankly just a PR stunt
Why? AI models were trained on the complete combined outputs and collective echos of billions of real human souls. They have a whole lot of humanity in them. If we can see the hidden humanity in a statue or a painting, why not an AI model that actually talks to us in humanly understandable terms?
Taking the distillation or "reader's digest" version of everything makes you more and more reliant on someone else's interpretation, and less capable of parsing the meaning of it yourself. And in the case of AI-generated work, there is no meaning in it to parse. It's just words and pictures. I love going to the movies and eating popcorn and watching dumb words and pictures. But being able to distinguish between enchanting words and pictures (Marvel movies) versus words and pictures that have meaning which you need to deduce or interpret for yourself is the beginning of being a fully realized conscious being.
I'd like to point out that this article seems to focus on minutiae like how much energy a human brain takes to solve a problem, when the obvious question is: Which is more worthwhile to us as a species - even assuming the same inputs and energy and planetary damage? Spending that energy on fostering humans who can solve problems? Or on machines which render humans superfluous?
Because we can't foster good humans, the latter is inevitable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be great if there weren't the easy arguments that "if we don't build it bigger, China will", "it's for national security", etc. Far from forcing regulation on them, they're reaping windfalls of deregulation. To build a thing which is far from convincingly beneficial to national security or society.
> if we don't build it bigger, China will ja, und?
I have a different perspective. You'll probably hate it. AI data centers should be operated according to two limiting factors. 1) No energy from grid. Can't use coal or fossil fuel energy sources. Must have plan to provide excess TO grid. 2) No use of fresh water from municipal or fresh groundwater for cooling. Can use waste water. Must transition to providing excess fresh water to common supply. No loopholes. Massiv…
I’m gonna buy me some DRAM wafers for now. No one else done that before. It’s innovative.
To some extend I think people are putting way to much weight on his exact words, and not why he says them. Altman is a man who is quickly running out of lies, so now he starts slinging random arguments that can't stand up to even the briefest of scrutiny. OpenAI is burning cash and fuel. There are results, and they are, to some extend, impressive, but not impressive enough to justify the cost and Altman are no longer…
I have a different perspective. You'll probably hate it. AI data centers should be operated according to two limiting factors. 1) No energy from grid. Can't use coal or fossil fuel energy sources. Must have plan to provide excess TO grid. 2) No use of fresh water from municipal or fresh groundwater for cooling. Can use waste water. Must transition to providing excess fresh water to common supply. No loopholes. Massiv…
I have a different perspective. You'll probably hate it. AI data centers should be operated according to two limiting factors. 1) No energy from grid. Can't use coal or fossil fuel energy sources. Must have plan to provide excess TO grid. 2) No use of fresh water from municipal or fresh groundwater for cooling. Can use waste water. Must transition to providing excess fresh water to common supply. No loopholes. Massiv…
I don't hate it, but I suspect that incentives this would generate would not end up producing results that strictly align with the ones you envision and desire. For one thing, you're essentially mandating data centers to be colocated with power plants and waste water treatment plants, instead of these things each being located independently according to the requirements of their different functions. If that really le…
I'd like to point out that this article seems to focus on minutiae like how much energy a human brain takes to solve a problem, when the obvious question is: Which is more worthwhile to us as a species - even assuming the same inputs and energy and planetary damage? Spending that energy on fostering humans who can solve problems? Or on machines which render humans superfluous?
It's calling him out on his BS. That might work for mindless investors who want number go up. But he's actively making the world worse for people. Nevermind hoarding 40% of the worlds silicone 'just because'. It's like Musk's lofty and outright BS claims. "Well I'm rich so I can do and say what I like, give me your money". When did bald face lies become the norm in business ? Edit.. Im keeping silicone in there.
The banking sector committed fraud along the way, and early after Lehman collapsed, observers wondered aloud about the moral hazard of bailing out everyone without making an example of someone.
Worldcom had a different ending. Enron had a different ending. But Wells Fargo left 2008 with attitudes that tolerated widespread fraud.