61–70 of 489 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do we make money on it, especially if massive amounts of the population lose their jobs?
You know the quote "it is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism"? Well, AI has allowed me to start imagining the end of capitalism. I'm not claiming we're necessarily very close, but I can clearly see the way from here to a post-scarcity society.
> Most of the money is being spent on incredibly expensive GPUs that have a 1-3 year lifespan due to becoming obsolete quickly and wearing out under constant, high-intensity use. How about chips during the dotcom period? What was their lifespan?
Maybe in next decade we will have cheap gaming cloud offerings built on repurposed GPUs.
I cant believe people still arent grasping the profound implications of computers that can talk and make decisions.
I admit to only being in this industry for three decades now, and only designing and implementing the thermal/power control algo of an AI chip family for three years in that time, but it's the first time I hear of chips "wearing under high intensity use".
thanks for that comment. I know absolutely nothing about chip designs, but i too was under the assumption that chips, like anything, wear out. And the more you use them, the more they do. Is the wear so small that it’s simply negligible ?
He writes as if only datacenters and network equipment remain after the AI bubble bursts. Like there won't be any AI models anymore, nothing left after the big training runs and trillion-dollar R&D, and no inference served.
Who's going to pay to run those models? They are currently running at a huge loss.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can have a bubble, and still have profound impact from AI. See also the dotcom boom.
who cares about a bubble? we are on the cusp of intelligent machines. The implications will last for hundreds of years, maybe impact the trajectory of humanity
Without moralizing or assuming the worst intentions of oligarchs, globalists, evil capitalists, and so on, I still don’t understand how a consumption based economy continues to fund the build out (oil->Saudi Arabia->LPs->OpenAI) when the technology likely removes the income of its consumers. Help me understand.
Not saying that’s even remotely realistic over the next century, but it does seem to be how some of these people think. Excessive wealth destroys intelligence, it doesn’t enhance it, as countless examples show.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who's going to pay to run those models? They are currently running at a huge loss.
I run models for coding on my own machines. They’re a trivial expense compared to what I earn from the work I do. The “at a loss” scenario comes from (1) training costs and (2) companies selling tokens below market to get market share. Neither of those imply that people won’t run models in future. Training new frontier-class models could potentially become an issue, but even that seems unlikely given what these model…
But then, without this huge financial and tech bubble that's driven by these huge companies:
1/ will those models evolve, or new models appear, for a fraction of the cost of building them today?
2/ will GPU (or their replacement) also cost a fraction of what they cost today, so that they are still integrated in end-user processors, so that those model can run efficiently?
He writes as if only datacenters and network equipment remain after the AI bubble bursts. Like there won't be any AI models anymore, nothing left after the big training runs and trillion-dollar R&D, and no inference served.
Who's going to pay to run those models? They are currently running at a huge loss.
Creating new LLMs might be out of reach for all but very well-capitalized organizations with clear intentions, and governments.
There might be a viable market for SLMs though. Why does my model need to know about the Boer wars to generate usable code?