4 ms·
That's like saying it'd be actively bad to make the code more resource intensive simply because we have machinery that helps us deal with the extra requirements
by vasco 19d ago
That's like saying it'd be actively bad to make the code more resource intensive simply because we have machinery that helps us deal with the extra requirements. And as we know as computers got more powerful code didn't get lighter. If it can, it will.
- detourdog 18d agoUsing more resources than necessary is actually waste.
- vasco 18d agoThat's my point
- zahlman 18d agoI'm confused. You started out with "That's like saying", but you appear to agree with me completely.
- vasco 17d agoWhat I mean is we have evidence that if it's easy and possible people will do it. There's no need to predict anything. That it is bad is besides the fact, although obviously less performant software is worse, its easier to create.
- zahlman 17d agoUpthread we started with > Compute has already lost value for me. Six months ago I thought you needed a 1T+ model to be useful coding. Now I am able to get by just fine with a 27b model. and I was explaining why the complexity question is important in that context. Specifically, because it's part of why people judge the 27b model to be adequate compared to the 1T+ one. Yes, lots of people are slopping out low-quality things with powerful models because they don't know how software quality works and expect magic. I think we are talking at cross purposes but have no real disagreement.