Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CrankGPT

crankgpt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 252 posts

Re: CrankGPT

#211

Post by jaggederest »

SoftTalker wrote: post #118
thewebguyd wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For more reference how insane 700W is, the average FTP of a world tour pro road cyclist (i.e., Tour de France) is ~350-420W/6-7W/kg. FTP (Functional Threshold Power) being the avg you can sustain for an hour without fatiguing. My own is ~250W @ 3.12W/kg. I can't even hit 700W yet, let alone for over a minute. My 5 second power is ~640W. Crazy numbers.

A trained powerlifter probably exerts a few kW on a heavy lift, but only for a second or two.

Talakhadze's 267 kg clean & jerk from 2021 is somewhere well north of 5kw output (I can't find hard numbers, but possibly even like 7kw) for fractions of a second during the second half of the clean. It's wild stuff.

Re: CrankGPT

#212

Post by jimbokun »

overfeed wrote: post #167
eks391 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took several biomechanics classes as electives back in my undergrad, and in one assignment I remember comparing the energy outputs between the human and robot equivalents of different tasks, whether or not the robot was humanoid in how it was designed. The most impressive think that stuck with me is that humans are incredibly efficient , from an energy perspective, in anything we do, compared to machines. Every tim…

> The most impressive think that stuck with me is that humans are incredibly efficient, from an energy perspective, in anything we do, compared to machines. Humans are efficient, but not across the board. Trivial counterexample: walking is incredibly energy inefficient vs a bicycle or other wheeled conveyances whose primary dissipater is rolling resistance.

Now compare human on bicycle to human driving a car for energy efficiency.

Re: CrankGPT

#213

Post by jimbokun »

overfeed wrote: post #187
zaat wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a strange comparison. Wheels are incredibly limited in the type of surfaces they can be used on.

> That's a strange comparison It's not strange at all, I was responding to a specific, incorrect claim. I even quoted the wrong claim in my earlier comment , and I'll repeat it again, with added emphasis >>> humans are incredibly efficient, from an energy perspective, in anything we do, compared to machines I simply provided contrary evidence to a well-defined, falsifiable claim. How is that strange?

You're not wrong.

But annoyingly pedantic.

Re: CrankGPT

#214

Post by Aachen »

karussell wrote: post #204
Aachen wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider that you can do this as a working day because someone else is plowing the fields that grow your food, probably burning stored energy in fuels for the process We're sadly not that efficient. The 150kcal/6h=600kcal/day you've mentioned aren't enough, and it takes more than 600kcal to create 600kcal plus transportation into your home Besides, we won't stop existing, so any math about "chatgpt uses X kW and so i…

> and it takes more than 600kcal to create 600kcal plus transportation into your home This is not a strong argument or at least a different area of discussion. Because you can say exactly the same for the electricity: you need more than the power. You need the coal+transportation, or power plant, or solar panels ... I'm pretty sure humans are much more energy efficient ... for certain tasks ;)

Sure, do the math for both, considering also that the human will continue to run anyway and then see who should do the task to minimise worldsuck :P

Re: CrankGPT

#215

Post by eks391 »

layer8 wrote: post #142
eks391 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took several biomechanics classes as electives back in my undergrad, and in one assignment I remember comparing the energy outputs between the human and robot equivalents of different tasks, whether or not the robot was humanoid in how it was designed. The most impressive think that stuck with me is that humans are incredibly efficient , from an energy perspective, in anything we do, compared to machines. Every tim…

Unfortunately, humans want houses and cars and vacations and such, which makes them very expensive. ;)

Yessir! I even used AI this week, so I'm adding to the energy death of the universe way faster than if I had done something else. Not to mention my car and other things...

Re: CrankGPT

#216

Post by TurkTurkleton »

janderson215 wrote: post #99
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just use your page_up/page_down keys, and you can skip all the stupid/excessive scrolling requirements.

Now that iPhone has switched to USB-C, I can plug in my Apple Extended Keyboard directly without needing a dongle. It’s like magic.

Not even an ADB-to-USB dongle?

Re: CrankGPT

#217

Post by butlike »

alansaber wrote: post #58
zahlman wrote: post #48

The webpage linked is an example of everything I wish people would stop doing in web design. Fortunately, at the bottom there is a link to the "technical documentation" ( https://squeezlabs.github.io/handcrank/ ) which is vastly improved (aside from being light-mode-only and linked from a dark-mode-only marketing page). It also gives me much more interesting information (specifically: models that can apparently run a…

Why can't technical people appreciate that us, the silent majority, love having our scroll hijacked? I can't remember the last time I used a scroll bar to navigate a website, but using it to navigate between choppy javascript keyframes fills me with joy.

If they're not scroll hijacking, then we're just jacking it ourselves. Think about it.

Thanks, web designers <3

Re: CrankGPT

#220

Post by jason_oster »

zaat wrote: post #192
overfeed wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a strange comparison It's not strange at all, I was responding to a specific, incorrect claim. I even quoted the wrong claim in my earlier comment , and I'll repeat it again, with added emphasis >>> humans are incredibly efficient, from an energy perspective, in anything we do, compared to machines I simply provided contrary evidence to a well-defined, falsifiable claim. How is that strange?

Yes, but walking and moving on wheels is oranges and apples. It would be a relevant comparison if a robot with a movement mechanism based on two feet was more efficient than a human.

I’ll admit, at first, I thought the human vs machine comparison was about humanoid machines. But that’s too narrowly defined to be a useful comparison. Most machines in use today are not humanoid.

Then to boldly claim that humans are more efficient at anything compared to a machine, just does not follow.

Post reply on HN