3 ms·
I'm interested to see how this scales cost effectively, at all the search engines. DuckDuckGo is less profitable I think than Google/Bing, and are paying for A
by danpalmer 4y ago
I'm interested to see how this scales cost effectively, at all the search engines.
DuckDuckGo is less profitable I think than Google/Bing, and are paying for API access. Bing appears to be running the models directly on hardware rather than paying for marked-up API access, but it's still expensive. Google seems to be in a good place with their custom chips, but who knows. It'll all be fascinating to see evolve.
- ratg13 4y agoWhat are the custom chips that Google has? This feels like it’s not on my radar.
- philshem 4y agoNot GP, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor_Processing_Unit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor_Processing_Unit
- cronix 4y agoThese have been huge for things like Home Assistant and object detection in real time video processing via Frigate and Google Coral TPU Accelerator. It sure cut down on the false positives I was getting for detecting cars and people coming up my driveway and not deer or my dog walking across it. They're only about $100 and come in M.2 and USB form factors. https://github.com/blakeblackshear/frigate https://github.com/blakeblackshear/frigate
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- danpalmer 4y agoIt's the Tensor chips as another commenter mentioned. My feeling is that these should be cheaper in the long run than A100s from Nvidia because you're not paying another company's profit margin, plus they should be able to be more specialised and therefore less wasteful of compute, and therefore cheaper. I guess the counter to this is that if Google is developing them for itself only, then there's fewer economies of scale on the development process.