News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on NanoGPT. Parent comment

Re:NanoGPT by dmit on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @06:43AM (#34337419)
>> GPT-3 took 355 years to train

> Could this be distributed? Put all those mining GPUs to work.

Nope. It's a strictly O(n) process. If it weren't for the foresight of George Patrick Turnbull in 1668, we would not be anywhere close to these amazing results today.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:NanoGPT by davidy123 on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @09:15AM (#34338683)
I couldn't find any references to George Patrick Turnbull. If that an ancestor of yours? If so, the comment seems rather subjective.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:NanoGPT by taneq on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @09:29AM (#34338823)
They're being facetious about the '355 years to train' thing. ;)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:NanoGPT by davidy123 on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @11:02AM (#34339914)
OK haha good one then. Mine was a bit too subtle.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:NanoGPT by CyberDildonics on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @09:30AM (#34338839)
Why would an O(n) algorithm not be able to be distributed?
[ Parent | on HN ]