- I asked ChatGPT to do some napkin math, and it seems like on average it would take a human 13.75 million kcal worth of food, in those 20 years.
- Yes it does. It's kind of a fixed cost though, since we're going to feed and educate our youth anyway, unless Sam Altman would have those people to starve to death.
- This comparison only works if you assume scaling keeps paying off. Sara Hooker's research shows (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5877662) compact models now outperform massive predecessors and scaling laws only predict pre-training loss, not downstream performance. If marginal returns on compute are falling (https://philippdubach.com/posts/the-most-expensive-assumptio...), "energy per query" hides the real problem, a trillion dollars of infrastructure built on the bet that they won't.
- You are the carbon they want to reduce
- Now compare our waste and what might be extracted, psycho.
- This what I expect from a mid marketing team.....not a supposed visionary thought leader (/s).....
This is completely fallacious thinking that I assume is meant as a means of manipulating people who dont think deeply about the implications and procession of ideas that leads such obviously disingenuous intelluctual dishonesty....
Waste heat....is not the same as a biologically closed loop which microbes, bacyerium, myceliums, and plants and aninals all work in a concerted effort....
My Food becomes fertilizer....His waste becomes nothing of utility (unless they have amazing efficiencies that defy what we know about physics...)
- It also just doesn't make sense. Like, we train a human and that takes 20 years of food.
To train an LLM it needed a collection of 800TiB of data (The Pile). To generate that pile, you needed millions to billions of humans. So did training the LLM now suddenly take 20.000.000 billion years of food or are we not allowed to make the same shitty comparison.
- Oh so sad … 20 years the corporate overlords have to wait for their minions to be ready…
/s
