7 ms·
Just wait till these robot maximalists figure out that a pile of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen is much cheaper than robots made out of steel and carbon
by bliteben 1y ago
Just wait till these robot maximalists figure out that a pile of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen is much cheaper than robots made out of steel and carbon fiber.
- caycep 1y agoI mean, they haven't glommed onto the daily experience of giving a kid a snickers bar and asking them a question is cheaper than building a nuclear reactor to power GPT4o levels of LLM...
- jjmarr 1y agoIf we could directly convert the food energy of a Snickers bar to electricity we could easily power AI. A Snickers bar has 250 kcal, which is 1000 kJ or about 250 grams of TNT.[https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=250+kcal+in+joule https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=250+kcal+in+joule] chatgpt-4 uses 3.6 kJ to 36 kJ per query so you could get potentially hundreds of queries on a single Snickers bar. We only need a way to harness the power of the human body. Maybe we put people in VR for fun while using their body heat to power the AI.
- spookie 1y agoThe snickers bar allows more than a single query for the human though
- TeMPOraL 1y agoTemporarily, on the margin. A human would need multiple Snickers bars per day to survive, and can't survive on Snickers bars alone for more than couple days or weeks. Also no human is anywhere close to being as knowledgeable and skilled as LLMs at all the things at the same time, so it hardly even compares.
- drilbo 1y agodays? Pretty sure I could survive at least a couple years off snicker bars
- kortilla 1y ago> and can't survive on Snickers bars alone for more than couple days or weeks. lol, the spoiled times we live in that you think this. The human body is capable of surviving on very little. A thing with protein, fat and sugar would sustain you for incredible amounts of time. Many many months if not years.
- eru 1y agoOnly if you also ate some random other stuff you found lying around. Doesn't even have to provide much in the way of energy, just enough 'dirt' to round out your diet with whatever other essentials you need. Human bodies have evolved to survive for a long time on relatively little, yes. But not to evolve for a very long time on a single source of very 'clean' food like snickers bars. 'Clean' in the sense that chemically snickers has relatively well defined inputs, whereas hungry humans would eat just about anything, including insects and grass and bark or leather.
- kortilla 1y agoThis isn’t true. There are countless cases of people surviving for months on nearly no food at all. I’m not talking about what it takes to stay alive for long term periods. I was refuting the silly idea that you would die after a couple of days/weeks of snickers.
- jjmarr 1y agoI don't think I could write lengthy responses to hundreds of questions on a singular Snickers bar. I would need multiple.
- caycep 1y agoBut then eventually you need Keanu Reeves to put boundary conditions on the AI
- toast0 1y agoI was watching The Matrix Revolutions last night with my 14-year old. At one point, he told me "hey, that looks like ... Keanu Reeves"
- eru 1y agoTNT and other explosives have relatively little energy per kg compared to eg petrol or snickers. That's explosives are chemicals selected / designed to be able to release their chemical energy really quickly and without needing any external oxidizer (because harvesting atmospheric oxygen would be too slow). That focus obviously leads to compromises in other areas, like energy density.
- pfdietz 1y agoIf a person costs $100K/year to employ, at $0.10/kWh that would buy 1 GWh/year, or a steady power of over 100 kW.
- TeMPOraL 1y agoThey're fully aware of the obvious fact that LLMs are getting better at reasoning than humans at scale in general, and this includes power efficiency too. Meanwhile, what is not getting comparably better is robotics. This leads to obvious conclusion about natural order of things and division of labor: computers are for thinking, humans are for doing manual labor.
- caycep 1y agoWell, don't blame me, I voted for Kodos...
- TeMPOraL 1y agoKodos the Executioner, or the Rigelian from The Simpsons?
- autoexec 1y ago> the obvious fact that LLMs are getting better at reasoning than humans I wanted to say that you were wrong, that LLMs can't reason and so it certainly isn't an obvious truth that they do it better than humans, but when I asked AI if LLMs can reason it told me that they can't which (while still not being reasoned by the LLM) seems to support the spirit of your claim since it gave a correct answer while you (a presumed human that can reason) got it wrong.
- School-Cotton 1y agoHow are you defining “reasoning”?
- autoexec 1y agoThat seems to be the hangup. I have to use a definition that would put it on equal footing to what we do as humans since that's the comparison being made. Computers and software can be said to "understand", "think", and "reason" in their own way and informally people have always used those words in that context. Recently, software which has been trained on human-reasoned output is producing text that mimics reasoning well enough that it can be confused for the real thing, but nobody has been able to show that any reasoning (as a human reasons) is what's occurring.
- falcor84 1y agoTo all of you complaining about LLMs hallucinating, do try to give the same prompt to a kid on a sugar rush and let me know if you're getting more reliable responses.