71–80 of 213 posts
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…
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…
It's the most incredible coincidence. Three million paying OpenAI customers spend $20 per month (compare: NetFlix standard: $15.49/month) thinking they're chatting with something in natural language that actually understands what they're saying, but it's just statistics and they're only getting high-probability responses without any understanding behind it! Can you imagine spending a full year showing up to talk to a…
Firstly, do understand that I am not saying that LLMs (or ChatGPT) do understand.
I am merely saying that we don't have any sound frameworks to assess it.
For the rest of your rant: I definitely see that you don't derive any value from ChatGPT. As such I really hope you are not paying for it - or wasting your time on it. What other people decide to spend their money on is really their business. I don't think any normal functioning people have the expectation that a real person is answering them when they use ChatGPT - as such it is hardly a fraud.
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…
So yeah, you do use 2000 calories a day, but unless you live in an isolated jungle tribe, vast amounts of energy are consumed on delivering you food, climate control, electricity, water, education, protection, entertainment and so on.
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.
My brain uses quantum mechanics for protein folding, my mind cannot perform the maths of QM.
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
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…
For every calorie a human consumes, hundreds or thousands more are used by external support systems. So yeah, you do use 2000 calories a day, but unless you live in an isolated jungle tribe, vast amounts of energy are consumed on delivering you food, climate control, electricity, water, education, protection, entertainment and so on.
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
Our intelligence happened without an existing one. primordial cell -> intelligent human through Darwinian evolution.
But that doesn't change your point, as there's no reason to require an intelligence to create evolution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where did you get the 20 Watt from? My number is based on calorie usage
oh ok, I used 400 calories/day and not 400 kcal/day. Yea, then the numbers are off by 1000
I don't care. I've come to the conclusion that gpt and gemini and all the others are nothing but conversational search engines. They can give me ideas or point me in the right direction but so do regular search engines. I like the conversation ability but, in the end, I cannot trust their results and still have to research further to decide for myself if their results are valid.
Another thing a search engine cannot do that I use ChatGPT for on a daily basis is taking unstructured text and convert it into a specified JSON format.