3 ms·
Broadly, yes. Current AIs (LLMs etc) haves succeeded as brute-force prediction at it's lowest level. Of course there are many refinements here but this basic si
by joe_the_user 4y ago
Broadly, yes. Current AIs (LLMs etc) haves succeeded as brute-force prediction at it's lowest level. Of course there are many refinements here but this basic situation has meant that adaptive learning, updating, doesn't really work for this particular approach (as others mention).
The thing about this is if competition forces Google and Microsoft to offer a full ChatGPT style interface, they are going to be using a vast amount of cpu cycles and thus energy. This is going to be costly and potentially environmentally destructive. And only companies with vast server farms will be in this game.
- tiborsaas 4y ago> they are going to be using a vast amount of cpu cycles and thus energy. This is going to be costly and potentially environmentally destructive How much CPU do you think Google currently utilize? OpenAI is a relatively small company compared to Google and they can keep their services (barely) afloat. AI at scale is indeed server intensive, but probably nothing like what we already have. Also, new chips designs might significantly decrease power requirements in the future, so I wouldn't worry about the environmental issues.
- joe_the_user 4y agoHow much CPU do you think Google currently utilize? Lots and if they serve a ChatGPT interface, it will be N times as much as now since each will be to an LLM and involve a back-and-forth. What is N? 3, 10, 100? OpenAI is a relatively small company compared to Google and they can keep their services (barely) afloat. OpenAI has negligible income. They're effectively financed by Microsoft. I don't how much serving ChatGPT to the world costs but it's fairly expensive per transaction. It can't not be, since it's calling a model with billions of parameters.