News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Statement on AI Risk by toth on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @05:18PM (#36130970)
Roll to disbelief. That tweet is precisely about what I mentioned in my previous post that doesn't count: finetuning LAMA derived models. You are not going to contribute to the cutting edge of ML research doing something like that.

For training LAMA itself, Meta I believe said it cost them $5 million. That is actually not that much, but I believe that is just the cost of running the cluster for the the duration of the training run. I.e, doesn't include cost of cluster itself, salaries, data, etc.

Almost by definition, the research frontier work will always require big clusters. Even if in a few years you can train a GPT4 analogue in your basement, by that time OpenAI will be using their latest cluster to train 100 trillion model parameters.

Re:Statement on AI Risk by nico on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @05:42PM (#36131306)
It doesn’t matter

The point is that this is unstoppable

Re:Statement on AI Risk by MattRix on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @07:56PM (#36132817)
They aren’t saying that AI needs to stop existing, just that more effort needs to be put towards regulating it, monitoring it, aligning it, etc.
Re:Statement on AI Risk by nico on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @08:36PM (#36133101)
And what I’m saying is that it doesn’t matter and it is unstoppable
Re:Statement on AI Risk by ChatGTP on Wednesday May 31, 2023 @06:17AM (#36136614)
"nico" has spoken