3 ms·

You raise some good points about the "total of hours spent" but I guess you don't consider training time included. Also there is no need to quote the author's p

by keyle 2y ago

You raise some good points about the "total of hours spent" but I guess you don't consider training time included. Also there is no need to quote the author's post and have a go at him personally. There are better ways to get your point across by arguing the point made and not the sentences written.

BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
> I guess you don't consider training time included In the same way that I don't consider the time an author spends writing a book when saying how long it took me to read the book. OP lost zero time training ChatGPT. Or do you mean how much time OP spent training themself? Because that's a whole new can of worms. How many years should we add to OP's development times because probably they learned how to write code before this exercise?
- keyle 2y ago
  I was considering the energy used and $, R&D and time spent to train those models, which is colossal compared to the developer and factor that in. Then they don't look so impressive. For reference, I'm not anti-LLM, I use Claude and ChatGPT every day. I'm just raising those if you want to consider all facts.
  - lgas 2y ago
    That cost is amortized over all requests made against all copies of the model though. Fortunately we don't have to re-train the model every time we want to perform inference.
  - bawolff 2y ago
    That's a weird comparison. Would you also count the number of hours it took for someone to write the OS, the editor, etc? The programmer wouldn't be effective without those things.
  - menaerus 2y ago
    And now also consider the amount of time, school, university, practice and $$$ it took to train a software engineer. Repeat for the population of presumably ~30 million software engineers in the world. Time-wise it doesn't scale at all when contrasted to new LLM releases that occur ~once a year per company. $$$-wise is also debatable.

3 ms·

You raise some good points about the "total of hours spent" but I guess you don't consider training time included. Also there is no need to quote the author's p

by keyle 2y ago

BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
> I guess you don't consider training time included In the same way that I don't consider the time an author spends writing a book when saying how long it took me to read the book. OP lost zero time training ChatGPT. Or do you mean how much time OP spent training themself? Because that's a whole new can of worms. How many years should we add to OP's development times because probably they learned how to write code before this exercise?
- keyle 2y ago
  I was considering the energy used and $, R&D and time spent to train those models, which is colossal compared to the developer and factor that in. Then they don't look so impressive. For reference, I'm not anti-LLM, I use Claude and ChatGPT every day. I'm just raising those if you want to consider all facts.
  - lgas 2y ago
    That cost is amortized over all requests made against all copies of the model though. Fortunately we don't have to re-train the model every time we want to perform inference.
  - bawolff 2y ago
    That's a weird comparison. Would you also count the number of hours it took for someone to write the OS, the editor, etc? The programmer wouldn't be effective without those things.
  - menaerus 2y ago
    And now also consider the amount of time, school, university, practice and $$$ it took to train a software engineer. Repeat for the population of presumably ~30 million software engineers in the world. Time-wise it doesn't scale at all when contrasted to new LLM releases that occur ~once a year per company. $$$-wise is also debatable.