Live data from Hacker News

Why your brain is 3 milion more times efficient than GPT-4

grski.pl

31–40 of 213 posts

Re: Why your brain is 3 milion more times efficient than GPT-4

#31
The comparison doesn't really hold.

He is comparing energy spend during inference in humans with energy spend during training in LLM's.

Humans spend their lifetimes training their brain so one would have to sum up the total training time if you are going to compare it to the training time of LLM's.

At age 30 the total energy use of the brain sums up to about 5000 Wh, which is 1440 times more efficient.

But at age 30 we didn't learn good representations for most of the stuff on the internet so one could argue that given the knowledge learned, LLMs outperform the brain on energy consumption.

That said, LLM's have it easier as they are already learning from an abstract layer (language) that already has a lot of good representations while humans have to first learn to parse this through imagery.

Half the human brain is dedicated to processing imagery, so one could argue the human brain only spend 2500 Wh on equivalent tasks which makes it 3000x more efficient.

Liked the article though, didn't know about HNSW's.

Edit: made some quick comparisons for inference

Assuming a human spends 20 minutes answering in a well-thought out fashion.

Human watt-hours: 0.00646

GPT-4 watt-hours (openAI data): 0.833

That makes our brains still 128x more energy efficient but people spend a lot more time to generate the answer.

Edit: numbers are off by 1000 as I used calories instead of kilocalories to calculate brain energy expense.

Corrected:

human brains are 1.44x more efficient during training and 0.128x (or 8x less efficient) during inference.

Re: Why your brain is 3 milion more times efficient than GPT-4

#32
post #7

I feel the author is comparing an abstract representation of the brain to a mechanical representation of a computer. This is not a fair or useful comparison. If a computer does not understand words, neither does your brain. While electromagnetic charge in the brain does not at all correspond with electromagnetic charge in a GPU, they do share an abstraction level, unlike words vs bits.

No, only a brain can "think" and be original. A computer is limited to what we input to it. An "AI" simply recapitulates what it was trained on.

You’re holding on to a lost battle. We are biological computers. Maybe there’s something deeper behind it, like what some call a soul, but that’s hard to impossible to prove.

Re: Why your brain is 3 milion more times efficient than GPT-4

#33
post #22

I think GPT-4 is way more than 3 million times more efficient than my brain. All it does is a lot of multiplication and adding and my brain is crap at that.

Your conscious brain, maybe, your subconscious brain, no chance. The maths which goes into something as seemingly simple as picking up a glass is far beyond the reach of GPT. Hell, it’s so complex that the world’s top robotics labs burn through immense resources just to get some jittery arm to replicate the action.

Re: Why your brain is 3 milion more times efficient than GPT-4

#34
post #7

I feel the author is comparing an abstract representation of the brain to a mechanical representation of a computer. This is not a fair or useful comparison. If a computer does not understand words, neither does your brain. While electromagnetic charge in the brain does not at all correspond with electromagnetic charge in a GPU, they do share an abstraction level, unlike words vs bits.

No, only a brain can "think" and be original. A computer is limited to what we input to it. An "AI" simply recapitulates what it was trained on.

A brain is an electrochemical network made of cells; artificial neural networks are a toy model of these.

Each neurone is itself a complex combination of chemicals cycles; these can be, and have been, simulated.

The most complex chemicals in biology are proteins; these can be directly simulated with great difficulty, and we've now got AI that have learned to predict them much faster than the direct simulations on a classical computer ever could.

Those direct simulations are based on quantum mechanics, or at least computationally tractable approximations of it; QM is lots of linear algebra and either a random number generator or superdeterminism, either of which is still a thing a computer can do (even if the former requires a connection to a quantum-random source).

The open question is not "can computers think?", but rather "how detailed does the simulation have to be in order for it to think?"

Re: Why your brain is 3 milion more times efficient than GPT-4

#38

There is an immensely strong dogma that, to my best knowledge, is not founded in any science or philosophy: First we must lay down certain axioms (smart word for the common sense/ground rules we all agree upon and accept as true). One of such would be the fact that currently computers do not really understand words. ... The author is at least honest about his assumptions. Which I can appreciate. Most other people jus…

Yeah, for axioms like the above my next question is define 'understand'. Does my dog understand words when it completes specific actions because of what I say? I'm also learning a new language, do I understand a word when I attach a meaning (often a bunch of other words to it) to it? Turns out computers can do this pretty well.

Re: Why your brain is 3 milion more times efficient than GPT-4

#39

If some day AGI happens and can exists on its own, wouldn’t that prove that intelligence is a base requirement for intelligence to happen in the first place ? AGI can’t happen on its own, it needs our intelligence first to help it structure itself

> If some day AGI happens and can exists on its own, wouldn’t that prove that intelligence is a base requirement for intelligence to happen in the first place ? No, it would not.

Thank you for your powerful dogmatic argument

Re: Why your brain is 3 milion more times efficient than GPT-4

#40
That's a whole lot of hand waving. Also, field effect transistors deal with potential, not current. Current consumption stems mostly from charging and discharging parasitic capacitance. Also, computers do not really process individual bits. They operate on whole words. Pun intended.
Post reply on HN