4 ms·
Altman fluffs superintelligence to save humanity as OpenAI slashes prices
- ulfw 1y agoI am having a hard time figuring out when Elon and when Sam said something nowadays
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- notrealyme123 1y agoThis has to be the most diplomatic way to write "This guy sounds like he's on drugs".
- i_am_proteus 1y ago>GPT-4o query consumes around 0.3 watt-hours for a typical text-based question, though this increases substantially to 2.5 to 40 watt-hours for queries with very long inputs. Given a context window of 128 kilotokens, and how the energy usage range (0.3 to 40 Wh) increases by a factor of 133 from "single query" to "worst case," this suggests linear scaling of energy usage with context length. Given the common user pattern of "chat with the LLM" the 0.3 Wh figure seems reductive. As the chat grows in length, the length of the "query" becomes the length of the entire chat. Assuming context compression for long chats, the figure we're looking for per-question energy use should be the energy use for a query half the length of max context tokens. For GPT-4o: 20 Wh
- enqk 1y agoIf you only have two points you would always assume linear. But what if it’s quadratic, like this article claims? https://www.timdavis.com/blog/scale-or-surrender-when-watts-determine-freedom https://www.timdavis.com/blog/scale-or-surrender-when-watts-...
- i_am_proteus 1y agoGood point! The good news would be that GPT-4o average energy usage per query would be lower than 20 Wh. The bad news is that there's a quadratic increase in energy usage with the increase in a model's maximum context window. GPT 3.5 -> GPT 4 was an increase from thousands of tokens to hundreds of thousands of tokens.
- andrewstuart 1y agoI’m interested in how good it is at coding, only a little interested in other stuff.
- mrweasel 1y agoI'm sorry, but I'm not buying into that level of optimization. Earlier this year they struggled to make a profit on Pro at $200, granted that was for unlimited usage, but now they've optimized the design/implementation sufficiently to slash prices by 80%?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- helloplanets 1y agoI absolutely believe inference is cheap and efficient, but the net impact of training the model should be also added to the equation. Not just the cost of inference. Is this information readily available somewhere?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- rvz 1y ago> "Maybe we will go from solving high-energy physics one year to beginning space colonization the next year; or from a major materials science breakthrough one year to true high-bandwidth brain-computer interfaces the next year," he said. Maybe. Or maybe not. We note that fellow futurist Elon Musk, who once cautioned about releasing the AI demon, predicted in 2016 that humans would land on Mars by 2025. "Maybe" What about the definition of "AGI" being changed again to mean something else? What does "AGI" actually mean anymore or was it hijacked again for the purpose of manipulation? But this is the most important sentence of the entire article: > Tech leaders simply pay no cost for misprediction. They don't care if they are wrong on their predictions. So focus on what they are doing rather than what they are saying.
- chneu 1y agoBusiness man lies to sell product.