4 ms·

It's really just amusing that we've spent millions of dollars of fossil fuel and man hours training a toy that's really no better than a petulant child with no

It's really just amusing that we've spent millions of dollars of fossil fuel and man hours training a toy that's really no better than a petulant child with no better logic

mrbungie 4y ago
That phrase could be literally be applied to some people.
dzdt 4y ago
It's really just amazing that today with a budget of millions of dollars we can produce a toy with fluent (if petulant) communication and logic on the level of a human child. Such a thing was unimaginable a decade ago, and the technology is in its infancy. There is every reason to expect great advances over the current state in the coming months and years.
- curiousgal 4y ago
  Logic?
  - RandomWorker 4y ago
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2022/01/07/why-computer-assisted-humans-are-the-best-chess-players-and-what-that-means-for-technology-operations/amp/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2022/01/07/wh... A great example is computer assisted humans are the best chess players. Humans continually prod and break ai, but also improve it. Another example was the go ai that could be beaten with a trick but humans would never fall into the same trap. But once the flaw is know, a response or learning can be introduced to the computer to solve these issues.
    - yesenadam 4y ago
      > A great example is computer assisted humans are the best chess players. Not really a great example. People used to say that 25-30 years ago, when the strongest human (Kasparov) and the strongest chess computer were of comparable strength. The article you linked to mentions "Advanced Chess", which seems to have been a thing in the late 90s, but dried up about 20 years ago, and no-one mentions it in the chess world these days. Except very occasionally as a historical curiosity, to contrast with the situation today and for a while now: the best engines, like Stockfish and Leela, are such strong players that even the strongest human chess players would have nothing to contribute in a human + computer team. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess
wand3r 4y ago
This Google thing isn't even a web portal. They'll never sort the web like this its a million dollar text box.
visarga 4y ago
> no better than a petulant child Child, you say? That's a great achievement.
- weard_beard 4y ago
  No, this is a great achievement: https://infiniteconversation.com/ https://infiniteconversation.com/
replicanteven 4y ago
Hmm. It looks like natural gas is a little less than $2.50 / GigaJoule (~29.3kWh) at the moment. One A100 eats about 400W, and apparently OpenAI used about 1023 of those running for 34 days to train ChatGPT[1]. There's also a bunch of supporting equipment, so maybe they used around 500W * 1023 * (34*24=816)hrs = 417,384kWh? I think that would be around $35k in fossil fuels, assuming none of the datacenter's energy came from renewable sources? [1]: https://www.tooltester.com/en/blog/chatgpt-statistics/ https://www.tooltester.com/en/blog/chatgpt-statistics/
- sterlind 4y ago
  It's based on GPT-3, right? Is the amount of compute needed to train that factored in?
- Retric 4y ago
  You just assumed 100% efficient conversation between heat and electricity plus zero transmission losses etc, ignored the training time for earlier versions of ChatGPT or any of the building or developers equipment, and of course Natural Gas prices have only recently fallen so they where vastly higher during the actual training. A more reasonable estimate might be 5 years * 500W * 1,000 systems = 76.7 GWh, ~29.3kWh * 55% = 16.1 kWh. Actual electricity generation isn’t 100% natural gas but this is additional demand on the grid which tends to be supplied by natural gas unless there’s a surplus of green or nuclear power. Also, data centers also use AC etc so it’s really quite arbitrary how you want to estimate things. PS: A similar thing applies to EV’s people tend to use the existing mix of generation to estimate how green they are but it’s not like we are adding hydroelectric dams when people increase electricity consumption. It’s really a question of how marginal increases in demand are supplied.
- RandomWorker 4y ago
  -420,000 kWh X 30 year average grid emissions data California 0.233kgCO2e/kWh = 98tCO2e which is about the emissions of 7 households in the USA for one 2021 year.

It's really just amusing that we've spent millions of dollars of fossil fuel and man hours training a toy that's really no better than a petulant child with no better logic

mrbungie 4y ago

That phrase could be literally be applied to some people.

dzdt 4y ago

It's really just amazing that today with a budget of millions of dollars we can produce a toy with fluent (if petulant) communication and logic on the level of a human child. Such a thing was unimaginable a decade ago, and the technology is in its infancy. There is every reason to expect great advances over the current state in the coming months and years.

curiousgal 4y ago
Logic?
- RandomWorker 4y ago
  https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2022/01/07/why-computer-assisted-humans-are-the-best-chess-players-and-what-that-means-for-technology-operations/amp/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2022/01/07/wh... A great example is computer assisted humans are the best chess players. Humans continually prod and break ai, but also improve it. Another example was the go ai that could be beaten with a trick but humans would never fall into the same trap. But once the flaw is know, a response or learning can be introduced to the computer to solve these issues.
  - yesenadam 4y ago
    > A great example is computer assisted humans are the best chess players. Not really a great example. People used to say that 25-30 years ago, when the strongest human (Kasparov) and the strongest chess computer were of comparable strength. The article you linked to mentions "Advanced Chess", which seems to have been a thing in the late 90s, but dried up about 20 years ago, and no-one mentions it in the chess world these days. Except very occasionally as a historical curiosity, to contrast with the situation today and for a while now: the best engines, like Stockfish and Leela, are such strong players that even the strongest human chess players would have nothing to contribute in a human + computer team. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess

wand3r 4y ago

This Google thing isn't even a web portal. They'll never sort the web like this its a million dollar text box.

visarga 4y ago

> no better than a petulant child Child, you say? That's a great achievement.

weard_beard 4y ago
No, this is a great achievement: https://infiniteconversation.com/ https://infiniteconversation.com/

replicanteven 4y ago

Hmm. It looks like natural gas is a little less than $2.50 / GigaJoule (~29.3kWh) at the moment. One A100 eats about 400W, and apparently OpenAI used about 1023 of those running for 34 days to train ChatGPT[1]. There's also a bunch of supporting equipment, so maybe they used around 500W * 1023 * (34*24=816)hrs = 417,384kWh? I think that would be around $35k in fossil fuels, assuming none of the datacenter's energy came from renewable sources? [1]: https://www.tooltester.com/en/blog/chatgpt-statistics/ https://www.tooltester.com/en/blog/chatgpt-statistics/

sterlind 4y ago
It's based on GPT-3, right? Is the amount of compute needed to train that factored in?
Retric 4y ago
You just assumed 100% efficient conversation between heat and electricity plus zero transmission losses etc, ignored the training time for earlier versions of ChatGPT or any of the building or developers equipment, and of course Natural Gas prices have only recently fallen so they where vastly higher during the actual training. A more reasonable estimate might be 5 years * 500W * 1,000 systems = 76.7 GWh, ~29.3kWh * 55% = 16.1 kWh. Actual electricity generation isn’t 100% natural gas but this is additional demand on the grid which tends to be supplied by natural gas unless there’s a surplus of green or nuclear power. Also, data centers also use AC etc so it’s really quite arbitrary how you want to estimate things. PS: A similar thing applies to EV’s people tend to use the existing mix of generation to estimate how green they are but it’s not like we are adding hydroelectric dams when people increase electricity consumption. It’s really a question of how marginal increases in demand are supplied.
RandomWorker 4y ago
-420,000 kWh X 30 year average grid emissions data California 0.233kgCO2e/kWh = 98tCO2e which is about the emissions of 7 households in the USA for one 2021 year.