• mox@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I don’t care how they estimate their cost in dollars. I think the cost to all of us in environmental impact would be more interesting.

    • Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I want to see what the long term economic cost was after they fired tens of thousands of tech workers hoping to replace us with AI. It feels like workers are always the ones who suffer the most under capitalism.

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        They’ll fire more than that when the AI bubble busts and they stop pushing so hard into that development as it stagnates.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      Unless they’re finding exciting new and efficient ways to generate electricity, I imagine its a linear comparison. Maybe some are worse than others. I know Grok’s datacenter in Mississippi is relying exclusively on portable gas powered electric generators that are wrecking havoc on the local environment.

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Maybe this is the push we need to switch to nuclear. The attack is good it just needs somebody with deeper pockets than coal/gas to lobby it.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Microsoft is trying to restart Three Mile Island. But that’s a very old facility. I don’t see too much interest in building new ones.

          • linearchaos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Kind of. Microsoft is offering to buy the electricity and put jobs and data centers nearby, the state is reactivating the site.

            If more AI companies dedicate to buying vast amounts of electricity, there’s money and jobs in it

            But if they eye companies start making concentrated demand, It won’t people with deep pockets long to figure out how to turn up some small scale high output plants.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              If more AI companies dedicate to buying vast amounts of electricity, there’s money and jobs in it

              Google the history of the Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors in Georgia. I don’t think tech firms have 16 years to invest in new energy plants.

      • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 hours ago

        I didn’t know that; thanks for sharing.

        (BTW, I think you meant wreaking havoc.)

  • Wispy2891@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    It’s obvious that Google didn’t pay the crazy AWS prices to train Gemini, seeing how many servers they have in gcp.

    They mean that they used creative accounting to pay themselves crazy gcp usage bills to deduct from taxes?

  • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    20 hours ago

    The source didn’t have this detail - google training gemini “cloud” vs “own hardware”. Does Google Cloud not count as “own hardware” for google?

    • pandapoo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      This is an accounting trick as well, a way to shed profit, and maximize deductions, by having different units within a parent company purchase services from each other.

      I realize that my sentence long explainer doesn’t shed any light on how it gets done, but funnily enough, you can ask an LLM for an explainer and I bet it’d give a mostly accurate response.

      Edit: Fuck it, I asked an LLM myself and just converted my first sentence into a prompt, by asking what that was called, and how it’s done. Here’s the reply:

      This practice is commonly referred to as “transfer pricing.” Transfer pricing involves the pricing of goods, services, and intangible assets that are transferred between related parties, such as a parent company and its subsidiaries.

      Transfer pricing can be used to shift profits from one subsidiary to another, often to minimize taxes or maximize deductions. This can be done by setting prices for goods and services that are not at arm’s length, meaning they are not the same prices that would be charged to unrelated parties.

      For example, a parent company might have a subsidiary in a low-tax country purchase goods from another subsidiary in a high-tax country at an artificially low price. This would reduce the profits of the high-tax subsidiary and increase the profits of the low-tax subsidiary, resulting in lower overall taxes.

      However, it’s worth noting that transfer pricing must be done in accordance with the arm’s length principle, which requires that the prices charged between related parties be the same as those that would be charged to unrelated parties. Many countries have laws and regulations in place to prevent abusive transfer pricing practices and ensure that companies pay their fair share of taxes.

    • bjorney@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Does Google Cloud not count as “own hardware” for google?

      That’s why the bars are so different. The “cloud” price is MSRP

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      14 hours ago

      From the source:

      Our primary approach calculates training costs based on hardware depreciation and energy consumption over the duration of model training. Hardware costs include AI accelerator chips (GPUs or TPUs), servers, and interconnection hardware. We use either disclosures from the developer or credible third-party reporting to identify or estimate the hardware type and quantity and training run duration for a given model. We also estimate the energy consumption of the hardware during the final training run of each model.

      As an alternative approach, we also calculate the cost to train these models in the cloud using rented hardware. This method is very simple to calculate because cloud providers charge a flat rate per chip-hour, and energy and interconnection costs are factored into the prices. However, it overestimates the cost of many frontier models, which are often trained on hardware owned by the developer rather than on rented cloud hardware.

      https://epochai.org/blog/how-much-does-it-cost-to-train-frontier-ai-models

  • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Considering the hype and publicity GPT-4 produced, I don’t think this is actually a crazy amount of money to spend.

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Comparitively speaking, a lot less hype than their earlier models produced. Hardcore techies care about incremental improvements, but the average user does not. If you try to describe to the average user what is “new” about GPT-4, other than “It fucks up less”, you’ve basically got nothing.

      And it’s going to carry on like this. New models are going to get exponentially more expensive to train, while producing less and less consumer interest each time, because “Holy crap look at this brand new technology” will always be more exciting than “In our comparitive testing version 7 is 9.6% more accurate than version 6.”

      And for all the hype, the actual revenue just isn’t there. OpenAI are bleeding around $5-10bn (yes, with a b) per year. They’re currently trying to raise around $11bn in new funding just to keep the lights on. It costs far more to operate these models (even at the steeply discounted compute costs Microsoft are giving them) than anyone is actually willing to pay to use them. Corporate clients don’t find them reliable or adaptable enough to actually replace human employees, and regular consumers think they’re cool, but in a “nice to have” kind of way. They’re not essential enough a product to pay big money for, but they can only be run profitably by charging big money.

    • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      Yeah, I’m surprised at how low that is, a software engineer in a developed country is about 100k USD per year.
      So 40M USD for training ChatGPT 4 is the cost of 400 engineers for one year.
      They say cost of salaries could make up to 50% of the total, so the total cost is 800 engineers for one year.
      That doesn’t seem extreme.

    • huginn@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      20 hours ago

      The latest releases ChatGPT 4o costs $600/hr per instance to run based on the discussion I could find about it.

      If OpenAI is running 1k of those models to service the demand (they’re certainly running more since queries can take 30+ seconds) then that’s 200M/yr just keeping the lights on.

        • huginn@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          3.4bn is their gross - we have no idea what their operating costs are since they refuse to share them.

          Some estimates say they’re burning 8 billion a year.

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      AI is a broader term than you might realize. Historically even mundane algorithms like A* pathfinding were considered AI.

      Turns out people like to constantly redefine artificial intelligence to “whatever a computer can’t quite do yet.”

      • _sideffect@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        No.

        What I’m saying is what all these companies are presenting us is a smarter search.

        It’s just a tighter grouping of (biased) data that can be searched and retrieved a bit quicker.

        If they want to use the term ai, then hell, factory machines from the last century are ai too.

        • smooth_tea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          It’s just a tighter grouping of (biased) data that can be searched and retrieved a bit quicker.

          How is your intelligence different from being “biased data that can be accessed”?

          The fact that something can reason about what it presents to you as information is a form of intelligence. And while this discussion is impossible without defining “reason”, I think we should at least agree that when a machine can explain to you what and why it did what it did, it is a form of reason.

          Should we also not define what it means when a person answers a question through reasoning? It’s easy to overestimate the complexity of it because of our personal bias and our ability to fantasize about endless possibilities, but if you break our abilities down, they might be the result of nothing but a large dataset combined with a simple algorithm.

          It’s easy to handwave the intelligence of an AI, not because it isn’t intelligent, but because it has no desires, and therefore doesn’t act unless acted upon. It is not easy to jive that concept with the idea that something is alive, which is what we generally require before calling it intelligent.

    • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I hope you complained all these years when games used “AI” for computer controlled enemies, because otherwise your post would be super awkward

    • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      It is AI though. AGI, which is a subcategory of AI and what many people seemingly imagine AI to mean, it’s not—but AI, yes.

    • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Something was needed, tradsearch has sucked dick at anything other than finding a wiki article for an extremely broad topic for over a decade. Just make electricity sustainably. 🤷‍♂️

    • IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      It’s like the south park “Now we can finally play the game” but for AI. First we get infinite energy and then we can train an AI to calculate how we can create infinite energy.