this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
1034 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

60052 readers
2872 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee 40 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children)

Isn't it good that the money is being put back into circulation instead of being hoarded? I'm all in for the wealthy wasting their money.

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 46 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The problem is the bulk of it is going to Nvidia.

[–] Steve@startrek.website 23 points 3 months ago

Don’t forget all the fuel burned for electricity to power it!

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well probably not just Nvidia but the next likely beneficiaries are in the same range (Microsoft etc.)

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The money goes to Microsoft/Google/Amazon/etc, which they goes to Nvidia.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They buy the hardware once then sell services based on it.

Sort of, they buy the hardware and sell services, and then buy upgraded hardware. Nvidia is a pretty big part of the sales cycle.

[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I’m willing to bet the vast majority of that money is changing hands among tech companies like Intel, AMD, nVidia, AWS, etc. Only a small percentage would go to salaries, etc. and I doubt those rates have changed much…

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 5 points 3 months ago

They typically use internal personnel and being parcimonious about it so you're right about that.

[–] finley@lemm.ee 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Kinda, but it’s like feeding a starving child nothing but candy until they die.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] where_am_i@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, the brightest minds instead of building useful tech to fight climate change, spend their life building vanity AI projects. Computational resources instead of folding proteins or whatever are wasted on some gradient descent of some useless model.

All while working class wages are stagnant. And so your best career advice is to go get a random tech degree so you could also work on vanity stuff and make money.

This is cryptocurrency equivalent. It's worse than CEOs buying yachts. The latter actually leads to some innovation.

[–] ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Succesfully creating an actual AGI would be by far the biggest and most significant invention in the human history so I can't blame them for trying.

[–] where_am_i@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

A bunch of people fine-tuning an off-the-shelf model on a proprietary task only to fail horrendously will never lead to any progress, let alone AGI.

So, nobody is trying AGI.

If all those people would actually collectively work on a large-scale research project, we'd see humanity advance. But that's exactly my point.

[–] ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

"Nobody is trying AGI" is simply just not true. If you think what they're doing will never lead to AGI, then that's an opinion you're free to have, but it's still just that; an opinion. Our current LLM's are by far the closest resemblance of AGI that we've ever seen. That route may very well be a dead end but it may also not be. You can't know that.

[–] where_am_i@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Oh gosh, look, an AI believer.

No, LLM will not lead to AGI. But even if they did, applying existing tech to a new problem only to fail cuz you're dumb at estimating the complexity does not, in fact, improve the underlying technology.

To paraphrase in a historical context: no matter how many people run around with shovels digging the ground for something, it will never lead to an invention of the excavator.

[–] ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Ad hominem and circular reasoning isn't a valid counter-argument. You're not even attempting to convince me otherwise, you're just being a jerk.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 3 months ago

The larger issue that people always fail to remember is the energy consumption. We are see massive amounts of electricity.

One peer-reviewed study suggested A.I. could make up 0.5 percent of worldwide electricity use by 2027, or roughly what Argentina uses in a year. Analysts at Wells Fargo suggested that U.S. electricity demand could jump 20 percent by 2030, driven in part to A.I.

The wealthy are under sailing like always. Just like we did with cigarettes or burning fossil fuels. We should have learned but it by the time we do, it might be to late.

https://archive.ph/AqhHz

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Thats a "Parable of the Broken Window". They could be spending their money on something actually useful.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

But they probably wouldn't, they'd just throw it at gold, crypto, or something else that doesn't provide any real value.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

Even stuffing it under a mattress is better than wasting people's time.