“But it also takes a lot of energy to train a human,” Altman said. “It takes like 20 years of life and all of the food you eat during that time before you get smart. And not only that, it took the very widespread evolution of the 100 billion people that have ever lived and learned not to get eaten by predators and learned how to figure out science and whatever, to produce you.”
So in his view, the fair comparison is, “If you ask ChatGPT a question, how much energy does it take once its model is trained to answer that question versus a human? And probably, AI has already caught up on an energy efficiency basis, measured that way.”
by this logic AI has also used the knowledge of 100 billion people and has the same starting energy debt as a person. with the added bonus that it can’t actually create anything new. Even their dumbass arguments can’t stand under their own weight
According to the article, this was his literal next sentence:
And not only that, it took the very widespread evolution of the 100 billion people that have ever lived and learned not to get eaten by predators and learned how to figure out science and whatever, to produce you.
Where’s Alannis Morissette when you need her?
I really wish Sam Altman would treat himself with the dignity and efficiency he wants to treat us with.
The ideology of evil eugenicists didn’t die with Hitler, and they didn’t die with Epstein either.
He will probably claim to work a gazillion hours a week with an unrivaled efficiency, making him one of the most productive humans on Earth. Because these people are not just sociopaths, they’re also completely delusional about their intelligence and true worth, out of money worth.
You’re right. I forgot that AI people had that mindset. A dangerous thing to forget, because people like that will literally descend into an ideology that believes you can kill others if they inconvenience you.
Except the energy AI is using should also calculate the amount of time and energy used to create all the plagiarized works in its memory banks to make a better comparison.
Don’t forget the energy needed to produce the humans who:
- Produced research leading to the creation of LLMs.
- Figured out how to design the GPUs that AI run on.
- Extracted the raw materials for the chips.
- Processed the materials into products.
- Transported the materials and products.
- Installed the GPUs in datacenters.
- Built the datacenters.
- Operate the civil infrastructure providing power and water to the datacenters.
- Planned and designed that civil infrastructure.
- Congregated into a single area to create the town/city where that infrastructure was planned.
- Birthed that population of people.
- Etc.
Hint: It’s the same cumulative energy that his own stupid argument is hinged on.
And inventing and refining the computer
The worst of it is how human existance makes electricity and RAM more expensive for AI. Hard reality check soon.
Applebottom jeans and the boots with fir. Robot raises arm and all the servos go whirr.
The proper response to dystopian prophecies is not “challenge accepted”!
wait, are you telling me my dream of building those mega-housing blocs in cp2077 is misguided?
How about he replace his role with an llm?
Machines have taken a commanding lead over humans when it comes to pretending that they give a shit about what Sam Altman thinks. They can have this one.
Altman, Thiel, Musk, et al, need to be headed to the gallows.
The problem isn’t so much their reckless careless behavior, but that they can get so many people to go along and invest.
That’s because capitalism is a mental illness, these people are all sick and need treatment
Oh good, the Bitcoin argument.
“Sure, Bitcoin wastes a lot of energy, but you know what else wastes energy? The Visa payment network.”
Yeah, but Visa handles six quadrispillion transactions per megawatthour, Bitcoin handles two drug purchases. Not the same results, is it?
So yeah, training humans takes a lot of energy. But in the end, you get a coherent, capable and well functioning individual. Spend the same energy on training LLMs and you get a system that’ll happily tell you to glue the cheese on pizza or something.
Yeah because nobody drugs with any other method than bitcoin. Clutch those pearls harder while you wash down your leagal and totally not drugs pharmaceutical pills and alcohol.
Mistaking the map for the territory. The argument isn’t that bitcoin is bad because it’s used to buy drugs, it’s bad because the network would choke if it even had to handle the economic activity of a moderately sized town.
Ha! I have never had a disease nor one sip of the alghoul’s poison.
Not trying to defend the idiotic argument, but feels like more often than not the human output is not what I would call coherent, capable and well functioning.
Well to be fair, we’re putting those resources into AI and not schools.
Well another argument they have is the amount of waste that comes with the churn of fiat currency, where we inflate asset values in order to deliberately grow aggregate demand.
The housing bubble for instance was obviously cheap debt, which was used to grow aggregate consumption, by rewarding asset holders thus encouraging them to offload their asset to increase the velocity of money.
On the gold standard the average mortgage was 7 years, which was because there was less need to grow the money supply, because we werent trying to force an inflation target. Massive windfalls werent common, and thus housing wasnt being bid up via the cantillon effect, so was better for society in many ways when consumption wasnt being forced onto people.
Maybe we could use altman to fuel the ai? As charcoal?
Not that efficient since most of him is just water.
Well maybe we need to compensate for the inefficiency by including all his CEO and Billionaire buddies as well.
LLMs are trained on the sum of human knowledge. So that same exact burden is carried by your “AI”.
So a couple of watts per day of energy spent by a human brain compared to the gigawatts it takes to train and run your shitty text prediction engine is not equivalent.
Tech bros deal in false equivalencies. In general they rely on the playbook of logical fallacies. The one they rely on most is the presumption that the technology they’re trying to sell is correct by default as if it’s a fundamental law of the universe. And that the onus is on others to prove them wrong. Rather than them having to prove its correctness.
They often resort to ad hominem by implying their detractors lack intelligence or they’re emotional. This again draws on more logical fallacy that because they deal in technology it means they presume to own the position of being purely objective and correct by default. So anyone who says otherwise is disputing science itself.
In other words they never have to prove the veracity of the technology they’re trying to sell because they divert the discourse off topic to frivolous arguments about something else.
And humans also built the fucking power plants and pay for the energy they use, asshole.
You said so ? Now go blow Arab dicks for oil money.
