2 ms·

That's anything at scale. Emergence isn't a sole feature of NNs. NNs are to emergent behavior what crypto is to cash; hyping an enormous waste of resources with

That's anything at scale. Emergence isn't a sole feature of NNs. NNs are to emergent behavior what crypto is to cash; hyping an enormous waste of resources with the promise to solve every problem, when any given problem has already been solved more elegantly. If you don't believe me about NNs, look at the caloric burden of the human brain, for fuck sake.

quickthrower2 3y ago
I agree the energy cost is concerning. And we are lucky we don't have unlimited coal, unlimited power and unlimited GPUs because we'd hit 4 degrees warming by Christmas with everyone trying it out. The human brain is a salient point because often we are using AI so that the human brain can do less. Get this GPU to RTFM instead of the human. The human time is more valuable. All the while making the human brain probably less effective (compare someone who learns another language vs. someone who speaks it through an AI translator only). I hold both points of view that AI is both marvelous, but also concerning in terms of energy use. To nitpick - in " NNs are to emergent behavior what crypto is to cash " applies more to large language models. Simpler NNs for easy tasks that don't consume much power wouldn't apply (that might be like a VISA card?)
soulofmischief 3y ago
I'm sorry, what is your argument? Is it that this behavior is the result of any system at scale? That is undeniably preposterous. Is it that the human brain is more efficient? At energy usage, sure, but for me to find an individual who is capable enough to assist me in the manner GPT does, at the speed and level of breadth and depth that it does, would be next to impossible. If I did, their required compensation would be astronomical. What are you arguing for or against? Are you aware that these systems will, like all previous computationally intensive systems, become drastically more efficient over time?

quickthrower2 3y ago

I agree the energy cost is concerning. And we are lucky we don't have unlimited coal, unlimited power and unlimited GPUs because we'd hit 4 degrees warming by Christmas with everyone trying it out. The human brain is a salient point because often we are using AI so that the human brain can do less. Get this GPU to RTFM instead of the human. The human time is more valuable. All the while making the human brain probably less effective (compare someone who learns another language vs. someone who speaks it through an AI translator only). I hold both points of view that AI is both marvelous, but also concerning in terms of energy use. To nitpick - in " NNs are to emergent behavior what crypto is to cash " applies more to large language models. Simpler NNs for easy tasks that don't consume much power wouldn't apply (that might be like a VISA card?)

soulofmischief 3y ago

I'm sorry, what is your argument? Is it that this behavior is the result of any system at scale? That is undeniably preposterous. Is it that the human brain is more efficient? At energy usage, sure, but for me to find an individual who is capable enough to assist me in the manner GPT does, at the speed and level of breadth and depth that it does, would be next to impossible. If I did, their required compensation would be astronomical. What are you arguing for or against? Are you aware that these systems will, like all previous computationally intensive systems, become drastically more efficient over time?