PeriodicallyPedantic

joined 2 years ago
[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

You're way overcomplicating how it could be done. The argument is that training takes more energy:

Typically if you have a single cost associated with a service, then you amortize that cost over the life of the service: so you take the total energy consumption of training and divide it by the total number of user-hours spent doing inference, and compare that to the cost of a single user running inference for an hour (which they can estimate by the number of user-hours in an hour divided by their global inference energy consumption for that hour).

If these are "apples to orange" comparisons, then why do people defending AI usage (and you) keep making the comparison?

But even if it was true that training is significantly more expensive that inference, or that they're inherently incomparable, that doesn't actually change the underlying observation that inference is still quite energy intensive, and the implicit value statement that the energy spent isn't worth the affect on society

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 10 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

She could be spiking the camera. Also perspective is hard. Maybe the artist just couldn't make it work and thought "fuck it, close enough, people will understand"

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 3 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

I'm still trying to figure out my network settings so that I can have my IoT one one network while still being able to access my home assistant from the other network.

Unfortunately, my ISP is also my cable company, and I have to use their modem/router combo else the cable boxes won't accept the cable signal. I'm using my own wireless access point (which also doubles as a switch for the handful of Ethernet devices I have), and it can split off a separate SSID, but that's not really doing much.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

I guess.

It still smells like an apologist argument to be like "yeah but using it doesn't actually use a lot of power".

I'm actually not really sure I believe that argument either, through. I'm pretty sure that inference is hella expensive. When people talk about training, they don't talk about the cost to train on a single input, they talk about the cost for the entire training. So why are we talking about the cost to infer on a single input?
What's the cost of running training, per hour? What's the cost of inference, per hour, on a similarly sized inference farm, running at maximum capacity?

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 points 17 hours ago

I'm not sure that's true, if you look up things like "tokens per kwh" or "tokens per second per watt" you'll get results of people measuring their power usage while running specific models in specific hardware. This is mainly for consumer hardware since it's people looking to run their own AI servers who are posting about it, but it sets an upper bound.

The AI providers are right lipped about how much energy they use for inference and how many tokens they complete per hour.

You can also infer a bit by doing things like looking up the power usage of a 4090, and then looking at the tokens per second perf someone is getting from a particular model on a 4090 (people love posting their token per second performance every time a new model comes out), and extrapolate that.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 points 18 hours ago (5 children)

I'm interpreting your statement as "the damage is done so we might as well use it"
And I'm saying that using it causes them to train more AIs, which causes more damage.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 3 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

He isn't talking about locally, he is talking about what it takes for the AI providers to provide the AI.

To say "it takes more energy during training" entirely depends on the load put on the inference servers, and the size of the inference server farm.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 6 points 22 hours ago (8 children)

Right, but that's kind of like saying "I don't kill babies" while you use a product made from murdered baby souls. Yes you weren't the one who did it, but your continued use of it caused the babies too be killed.

There is no ethical consumption under capitalism and all that, but I feel like here is a line were crossing. This fruit is hanging so low it's brushing the grass.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 3 points 23 hours ago

It's like "sending"

Could be good or bad depending on the context

Enjoy my last day on earth with a citronella candle up my ass

Don't
Worry
About
The
Squirting

This is to cutlery what anti-homeless park benches are to seating

 

I cum in the shower, instead.

 

Imagine living in a universe where, without even trying, you can run so fast that if you trip, you will die and splatter your body over a couple hundred meters of ground. And if you trip into someone, it'll kill them and possibly an entire pile of people.

Like, in motor racing, the cars get wrecked but the drivers are fine. In the movie Cars, they all die. The race spectators are watching a blood sport.

 

What is a bread roll if not all crust?
What is toasting, if not making the whole piece of bread more crust-like?

 

When toilets try to save money by reducing the amount of water they use per flush, but you end up having to flush like 3 times 🤬

 

What would you put in your second aid kit?

76
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
 

Be me.
I've started sitting down to pee because it's cleaner.
Stand up after I've finished peeing.
Pull up pants.
Turn around to flush.
There is poop in the toilet.
I forgot that this time I had sat down to poop.

 

In old plays and stories, such as Romeo and Juliet, poisons are depicted as being fairly fast acting.

Would they really have had access to such poison, or was it simply creative license? What would a realistic depiction of a poison of that era be?

 

I'm trying to figure out a ruling for something one of my players wants to do. They're invisible, but they took a couple of seemingly non-attack actions that my gut says should break inviz.

Specifically, they dumped out a flask of oil, and then used a tinderbox to light it on fire. Using a tinderbox isn't an attack, nor is emptying a flask, although they are actions , and the result of lighting something on fire both seems like an attack and something that would dispell inviz.

I know that as DM I can rule it however I want, but I'm fairly inexperienced and I don't wanna go nerfing one of my players tools just because it feels yucky to me personally without understanding the implications.

Is this an attack or is there another justification for breaking inviz that is there some RAW clause I didn't see? Or should this be allowed?

 
 
 

I know I have small hands but c'mon. Flagship phones these days are strait up small tablets, not even what we'd have called on phablets 15 years ago.

I know it's what people buy, but I'm still sad that if I want a phone that small then I have to deal with camera and display a couple gens old

view more: next ›