Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gorgon Zee" data-source="post: 9703742" data-attributes="member: 75787">It’s worth pointing out that this article is a year and two months old, so written on data from 18 months plus ago. His estimates are almost certainly now out by a factor of 2, as the A100/A1000 chips then used have been replaced by more efficient versions, running about half the power.Furthermore, the article was written before models that use previously created models and distill them into cheaper / more efficient versions hit the scene (think DeepSeek).Yeah, they still use a heap of energy, but currently it’s not unreasonable to assume they will halve in energy use every 18 months. You do have to set that against the rise in multi-query chain of thought models, which are computationally and energy-wise more expensive. But I do think that Bashir’s model is a bit naive in not taking into account the pace of development of more efficient systems. Plus it’s a little weird to say that this will require more fossil fuel investment, since solar is by far the largest growing segment, and is now cheaper than fossil. No-one is building new fossil plants — they’re building solar or nuclear. I’m pretty sure this was known when he wrote his paper, so not sure why he ignored this. Anyway, TLDR — These old estimates are not reflected in todays costs; but better newer models require more and likely balance out the trend. Fossil is dead, anyone needing power is going solar or nuclear.</blockquote>

Verification