News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:NanoGPT by pprotas on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @06:12AM (#34337222)
What does “355 years” mean in this context? I assume it’s not human years
Re:NanoGPT by mellosouls on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @06:22AM (#34337283)
Claimed here, so this is presumably the reference (355 GPU Years):

https://lambdalabs.com/blog/demystifying-gpt-3

"We are waiting for OpenAI to reveal more details about the training infrastructure and model implementation. But to put things into perspective, GPT-3 175B model required 3.14E23 FLOPS of computing for training. Even at theoretical 28 TFLOPS for V100 and lowest 3 year reserved cloud pricing we could find, this will take 355 GPU-years and cost $4.6M for a single training run. Similarly, a single RTX 8000, assuming 15 TFLOPS, would take 665 years to run."

Re:NanoGPT by dx034 on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @06:35AM (#34337362)
That's still including margins of cloud vendors. OpenAI had Microsoft providing resources which could do that at much lower cost. It still won't be cheap but you'll be way below $5m if you buy hardware yourself, given that you're able to utilize it long enough. Especially if you set it up in a region with low electricity prices, latency doesn't matter anyway.
Re:NanoGPT by Manfred on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @06:18AM (#34337256)
Cumulative hours spent across training hardware.