• niktemadur@lemmy.world
    11·
    23 hours ago

    What would happen if you did the equivalent of feeding your A.I. a healthy diet, then run a parallel system and fed it only burgers and pizza and Doritos?

  • Sabata@ani.social
    19·
    1 day ago

    My shit ass wetware needs to lock in and catch up. It can’t even run Doom or play back Bad Apple properly.

  • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
    144·
    2 days ago

    If you ever study biochemistry, it leaves you absolutely in awe. The best engineering we can do is pretty amazing, we have computers and airplanes and all this magic stuff, but the stuff in you is a hundred, a thousand times better made. It’s stunning. Comparatively speaking, it is perfect. And that’s only the stuff we understand. The stuff in your brain, we do not.

    • flippinfreebird@lemmy.todayEnglish
      36·
      1 day ago

      I remember a quote from Civ along the lines of “if the brain was simple enough for us to understand, our minds would be to simple to understand it.”

      • silasmariner@programming.dev
        1·
        44 minutes ago

        It’s a pretty trivial informational paradox for a mind to comprehend itself – comprehension of its comprehension of itself then needs further comprehension… So yeah. Only a much more complex mind can understand a given mind

    • Nangijala@feddit.dkEnglish
      17·
      1 day ago

      The fact that we only recently mapped out the brain really tells you a lot about its complexity.

    • MHLoppy@fedia.io
      562·
      2 days ago

      In the relatively short amount of time we’ve had with computers we’ve made pretty astounding progress though. If we had had a few million years to improve those silicon brains I think we’d give evolution a run for its money!

      • cm0002@lemmy.world
        362·
        2 days ago

        Yea, our engineered stuff might be simplistic compared to the brain and biology, but evolution is just a combination of luck, randomness and “unguided” trial and error. There’s no “thought” to evolution and that’s why we end up with all these…weird quirks and flaws LMAO

    • LostXOR@fedia.io
      33·
      2 days ago

      Natural selection is essentially just a massively parallel Monte Carlo optimization algorithm that’s been running for billions of years. It’s so simple yet produces such amazing complexity.

      • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
        11·
        2 days ago

        Give it a few more billion and we’ll finally have an intelligence, that’s not hell bent on destroying itself.

    • 8baanknexer@lemmy.world
      232·
      2 days ago

      I think this might be a case of expecting a fish to climb a tree. Brains are terrible in fp32 performance, and computers are so far not great at reasoning. But that’s mostly because they are made for different things. I’m not sure of this, but i would expect a single neuron firing costing a similar amount of energy as a single transistor firing. The difference is in part that they work differently, but I think the most important part is that they are put together differently. Computers were made for arithmetic while brains evolved for socialising and survival. For most other things you are 100% correct though, we could not recreate a bee or an ant even if we wanted to.

      • Pulptastic@midwest.socialEnglish
        5·
        1 day ago

        I can create real time visual imagery with no apparent resolution limit or perceptible frame rate including audio and a soundtrack.

        • Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works
          3·
          21 hours ago

          Oh, your brain is amazing, sure. Buuuut get Neuralink and let me plug my game in while you try to render the raytracing from foliage collision and I’m pretty sure you would crash like a Windows RT.

        • EddoWagt@feddit.nl
          3·
          1 day ago

          Apparent and perceptible are the key words here. Your brain makes up pretty much everything and pretends it’s the real deal. Detail and consistency really aren’t all that great actually, much like ai video generation

      • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
        4·
        1 day ago

        You’re allowed to have a type of awe and reverence for the natural world, very much akin to religion, without needing to buy into any bullshit along with it.

        It used to be pretty standard, and then the Christians (among others) fucked that up for everyone, and now you can’t be anything other than an aggressive humanist atheist without people starting to make assumptions about you.

          • mEEGal@lemmy.world
            13·
            2 days ago

            Sounds like agnosticism to me 🤝🤝

            But would you mind if it turned out to be a immensely powerful alien disguised as a guy from our own past ?

            At least, that seems more likely to me…

          • Deceptichum@quokk.auEnglish
            21·
            2 days ago

            I’d personally want to kill them for creating such evil and suffering in the world.

              • Cronization@lemmy.world
                5·
                1 day ago

                Babies get cancer. That’s not humans choosing evil. If there is a god that created a baby just to get cancer and die before age 3, that god is evil.

                • console.log(bathing_in_bismuth)@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  2·
                  1 day ago

                  There are hospitals trying their best to help with that, and you have people bombing hospitals for babies with cancer.

                  Animals eat animals. Isn’t that evil? By that entire life is cruel, and I don’t get why a god should have to take blame for it. It just seems to push away responsibility of doing good vs evil.

  • LostXOR@fedia.io
    633·
    2 days ago

    This article estimates that GPT-4 took around 55 GWh of electricity to train. A human needs maybe 2000 kcal (2.3 kWh) a day and lives 75 years, for a lifetime energy consumption of 63 MWh (or 840x less than just training GPT-4).

    So not only do shitty “AI” models use >20x the energy of a human to “think,” training them uses the lifetime energy equivalent of hundreds of humans. It’s absolutely absurd how inefficient this technology is.

    • proceduralnightshade@lemmy.ml
      16·
      1 day ago

      I think you underestimate how much time and energy it took to get us to this point. Like, billions of years of evolution to arrive at a brain as efficient as ours.

    • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
      71·
      1 day ago

      Human energy needs are incredibly variable so the estimates for normal consumption are wrong for most people, but when you get into essential systems (basically cardiovascular and nervous, not even including digestive or any muscle movement) you actually need even less - the average (by weight, height & age) man needs 1950kcal or so and the average woman (by height, weight & age) needs 1450kcal or so

      When we replace AI with brains in jars I’m sure we can cut it down even more though

    • ikt@aussie.zoneEnglish
      14·
      2 days ago

      A human needs maybe 2000 kcal (2.3 kWh) a day

      Did you just externalise all the other inputs?

        • ikt@aussie.zoneEnglish
          3·
          2 days ago

          depends what age your brain is, a 1 year old brain wouldn’t have a clue… and number of mental defects or how intoxicated the person is or whether you have vocalisation issues, health issues, if your brain is shut down/asleep for however many hours overnight it won’t be able to tell you anything, ai ofc doesn’t have these issues

          training them uses the lifetime energy equivalent of hundreds of humans

          it’s very likely actual electricity use will soon not be an issue, we are already flooded with too much solar power during the day, in maybe as little as 10 or so years we may have so much solar and battery we have essentially unlimited renewable power

          on top of all of this ai is in its infancy, who knows where it will be at in 100 years, maybe jobs are a thing of the past and we just spend all day socialising and spending time on our hobbies

          • LostXOR@fedia.io
            2·
            1 day ago

            it’s very likely actual electricity use will soon not be an issue, we are already flooded with too much solar power during the day, in maybe as little as 10 or so years we may have so much solar and battery we have essentially unlimited renewable power

            That could be true in the future, but right now a large chunk of our energy comes from fossil fuels.

            on top of all of this ai is in its infancy, who knows where it will be at in 100 years, maybe jobs are a thing of the past and we just spend all day socialising and spending time on our hobbies

            Any AI that can take a significant amount of work from humanity is going to have an architecture fundamentally different than LLMs. They’re not thinking, they’re just spitting out plausible sounding sentences.

    • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
      35·
      2 days ago

      Capitalism has us by absolute fools.

      Paying $69.99 for something someone else dreamed up.

      We have a solution for this, its called going to sleep.

        • Cort@lemmy.world
          7·
          2 days ago

          I’ve tried some of the free mods, but I can’t really recommend them. Definitely steer clear of frying-pan to the dome, and you won’t get any real lasting effect from hold your breath till you’re blue.

    • Justas🇱🇹@sh.itjust.works
      10·
      2 days ago

      I remember listening to a podcast with indy devs and they agreed that engaging player’s imagination is the best way to make sure your game succeeds. And most indy games don’t have the budget for super good graphics.