Oh ez, that's only 17 orders of magnitude!
If we managed an optimistic pace of doubling every year that'd only take.... 40 years. The last few survivors on desert world can ask it if it was worth it
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
60 points (98.4% liked)
TechTakes
1430 readers
104 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Rather amusing prediction that despite the obscene amount of resources being spent on AI compute already, it's apparently reasonable to expect to spend 1,000,000x that in the "near future".
cool graph what's the x axis
Bitcoin.
Lol
What these people don't realize is you're never gonna get AGI by just feeding a machine an infinite amount of raw data.
You’re right. We should move onto feeding it orphans
Check out my new startup at modestproposal.ai
Oh, that’s why the orphan crushing machine exists. Completely realistic, actually.
That reminds me, wonder if all the mods already got updated for the new version of rimworld.
load more comments
(29 replies)
Or: Let's not do that at a time where our energy consumption is literally killing the planet we live on.
You don't understand, after we invent ~~god~~ AGI all our problems are solved. Now step into the computroniuminator, we need your atoms for more compute.
Yeah I don't see why people are so blind on this. Computation is energy-intensive, and we are yet to optimize it for the energy. Yet, all the hopes..
We do optimize, it's just that when you decrease the energy for computations by half, you just do twice the computations to iterate faster instead of using half the energy.
that looks like someone used win9x mspaint to make a flag, fucked it up, and then fucked it up even more on the saving throw
Any vexollologist around to confirm this?
vexologist here. This certainly is vexing.
Surprised this isn't a bluecheck.
But maybe it's not visible.