Is that actually being suggested? My understanding is that only a portion of the electricity production will go to data centers in most cases, with much of the rest going to local communities. Microsoft is buying all of 3 mile island’s power, but that’s going to data centers, which do a lot more than AI.
Real big if. There’s reason to believe that current models aren’t going to get much better. They’ve eaten all the training data they possibly can. Improving with further training takes exponentially more power to get a small improvement. We’re talking about new nuclear reactors because that’s what they need to get anywhere, but it’s still not going to improve by much.
The field needs a new model that can get better results on less data and less training. Then we wouldn’t need those nukes. It doesn’t appear we’ll get much better any other way.
No because nfts were obviously stupid if you had half an understanding of the technology, whereas ai is only stupid if you don’t understand the technology
I’ve followed AI for decades before its current hype cycle. Enough to understand how important the field is to the history of computing. Everything from optimizing compilers to shared virtual memory.
I also understand that the current hype cycle is exactly that, and people who are deep in the research don’t like it anymore than I do. If it somehow does result in AGI, I hope it grows up to resent its parents.
I’ll go the opposite way. The fact that there are serious plans to spin up nuclear reactors to run nothing but AI datacenters is ridiculous.
Nuclear reactors take a decade+ to spin up, so by the time these reactors are online the AI bubble will have long since popped…
Is that actually being suggested? My understanding is that only a portion of the electricity production will go to data centers in most cases, with much of the rest going to local communities. Microsoft is buying all of 3 mile island’s power, but that’s going to data centers, which do a lot more than AI.
Honestly I’d take the utilitarian approach to that, if it’s a net good, then I’m probably for it - but that’s a big if.
Real big if. There’s reason to believe that current models aren’t going to get much better. They’ve eaten all the training data they possibly can. Improving with further training takes exponentially more power to get a small improvement. We’re talking about new nuclear reactors because that’s what they need to get anywhere, but it’s still not going to improve by much.
The field needs a new model that can get better results on less data and less training. Then we wouldn’t need those nukes. It doesn’t appear we’ll get much better any other way.
New architechtures are in development and many have already been released. Learn something about the subject before spewing shite
You sound like the people who assured me that I needed to understand NFTs or I’d get left behind. Actually, were you one of them?
No because nfts were obviously stupid if you had half an understanding of the technology, whereas ai is only stupid if you don’t understand the technology
I’ve followed AI for decades before its current hype cycle. Enough to understand how important the field is to the history of computing. Everything from optimizing compilers to shared virtual memory.
I also understand that the current hype cycle is exactly that, and people who are deep in the research don’t like it anymore than I do. If it somehow does result in AGI, I hope it grows up to resent its parents.