General Gaming News and Discussion
- Thread starter Wintermute
- Start date
-
Guest, did you like the last podcast notification?? Well here's the second one, and for the third podcast! Yep. This Thursday 8-8-24 at 7pm Central
Go here to check out his podcast thread for info on topics and links!Go into the FoH discord and find the Happy Time Fun Hour channel and give it a listen!
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 21,698
- 28,230
500ml of water is .0001$ here and 140wh is 1.68cents.
So closer to 1.69 cents at my rates. Even cheaper! I wonder what percentage of an African child slave would die in the process.
- 1
Mist
REEEEeyore
- 31,087
- 23,423
Palum
what Suineg set it to
- 26,292
- 40,639
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 21,698
- 28,230
I’d use ai to save time if you told me it would burn down the Amazon and destroy billions of dollars per 100 words. Why should I be concerned about someone else’s problems.
if writing 100 words takes 5 minutes, that's a couple pennies in food and ~$7 of my time. Let's pretend it's $0.10 in compute. I'd have be able to write the email in under five seconds to break even vs ChatGPT. Good trade.
Let's get nuclear power rolling to power AI, please.
Last edited:
Mist
REEEEeyore
- 31,087
- 23,423
I'm not saying that's not a good trade. It was just a frame of reference.
I'm just saying that scaling up to either coding or rendering an entire game using inference would be... a lot more than that.
First order of business for real AI is going to be reducing energy costs and increasing energy supply for future AI.
Looking forward, if human brains run on carrots I don't see how current GPTs are going to be representative of the long-term energy cost for AI. We're missing some very critical efficiency steps.
Kiroy
Marine Biologist
- 35,209
- 101,959
Ya I don’t believe this random picture you posted. So it costs the ‘economy’ (or tech companies??) 100s of dollars worth of energy and water (?? Cooling?) to get an AI to take a few minutes to spit out a short novel? It doesn’t even make sense. God imagine what the millions of images being generated constantly costs - must be in the trillions. There would be zero way to actually fund the start up plays if It was true that it’s almost 2 bucks per 100 words, a metric that really doesn’t make sense.
Is this like if I eat a steak I just deleted 1000 gallons of water and made 200lbs of co2 or something? (Because water / nature of course isn’t fungible /boggle)
Mist
REEEEeyore
- 31,087
- 23,423
I didn't believe it either, but I did the research and got shit on by people way smarter than me and it turned out they were right. (If it helps you believe it, they were men!)
The dollar cost of what's in the picture is not high, as
Furry
said, until you start adding it up over millions of prompts. But all of these companies are bleeding money, massively. OpenAI has stated in public documents that they intend to push the subscription fee up to $44 within 5 years, and even then they will be bleeding money:
OpenAI might raise the price of ChatGPT to $44 by 2029 | TechCrunch
OpenAI is considering raising the price of its AI-powered chatbot, ChatGPT, significantly — to $22 by 2025 and $44 by 2029.
techcrunch.com
Kiroy
Marine Biologist
- 35,209
- 101,959
I didn't believe it either, but I did the research and got shit on by people way smarter than me and it turned out they were right. (If it helps you believe it, they were men!)
The dollar cost of what's in the picture is not high, as
OpenAI might raise the price of ChatGPT to $44 by 2029 | TechCrunch
OpenAI is considering raising the price of its AI-powered chatbot, ChatGPT, significantly — to $22 by 2025 and $44 by 2029.
Just doesn’t make any logical sense to me. I understand start ups bleed money but if those numbers are true they’d be bleeding billions a day and using oceans worth of water every month. Increasing prices to 44 a month? According to the numbers I could spend that in 30 minutes going down a few different lines of questIoning. Really stands out as a lies damned lies and statistics type funny number bullshit.
Mist
REEEEeyore
- 31,087
- 23,423
They wouldn't be bleeding billions a day at 1.69 cents every 100 words, but they are bleeding billions a year. I think Furry's math is off by a bit, but it still probably costs them less than 5 cents every 100 words.
For instance, they have tricks like prompt caching, because a lot of people ask the same shit.
- 1
Edaw
Parody
- 13,177
- 87,203
It's based on this study.
news.ucr.edu
AI programs consume large volumes of scarce water
UCR study the first time estimates the huge water footprint from running artificial intelligence queries that rely on the cloud computations done in racks of servers that must be kept cool in warehouse-sized data processing centers.
Last edited:
Kiroy
Marine Biologist
- 35,209
- 101,959
So does the 1.69 factor in prompt caching?
Maybe not a billion a day but the amount of queries and requests, for words, images, videos ect a day has got to be mind boggling voluminous. And the number of queries are probably growing exponentially as people start to realize how easy it is to use “ai”.
A totally uneducated but logical bet i’d make is it costs them less than a cent for their AI to spit out a 100 word email. Anything more would be ruinous. 1.69 is laughable.
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 21,698
- 28,230
I'm sure those people know everything and have no reason to just push out meaningless slop as part of an agenda. Truth is, I don't care how much AI costs other people. If its free to me, I'll use it. If I gotta pay, NOPE. That said, I suspect there are a lot of people who will pay for AI. So I dunno, I wish them luck. Personally, I don't have any real use cases for AI past fucking with it for fun just to see what it will do. I already have 10s of thousands of unread work emails, cause I just can't be bothered to respond in the first place.I didn't believe it either, but I did the research and got shit on by people way smarter than me and it turned out they were right. (If it helps you believe it, they were men!)
The dollar cost of what's in the picture is not high, as
OpenAI might raise the price of ChatGPT to $44 by 2029 | TechCrunch
OpenAI is considering raising the price of its AI-powered chatbot, ChatGPT, significantly — to $22 by 2025 and $44 by 2029.
But I've set up AI on my computer, so I'm probably not the typical user.
Kiroy
Marine Biologist
- 35,209
- 101,959
It based on this study.
AI programs consume large volumes of scarce water
UCR study the first time estimates the huge water footprint from running artificial intelligence queries that rely on the cloud computations done in racks of servers that must be kept cool in warehouse-sized data processing centers.
Lol ya because that water is just deleted from existence. What a joke.
- 1
Kiroy
Marine Biologist
- 35,209
- 101,959
If it’s intigrated into a musk robo helper i’d pay the 20k to get a robot to do all chores and maybe a bit of a monthly to get good ai generated conversations / requests from the thing. Obviously i’d pay a little more for the fuckblaster 6000 attachment but we’ll see, have to talk to the wife.
- 51,095
- 299,197
It based on this study.
AI programs consume large volumes of scarce water
UCR study the first time estimates the huge water footprint from running artificial intelligence queries that rely on the cloud computations done in racks of servers that must be kept cool in warehouse-sized data processing centers.
Fake, Stupid, Retarded, and Gay. No wonder Mist is chicken littling over it.
- 1
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 21,698
- 28,230
1.69 cents was going off what the things in the picture graphic would cost me to buy at my local business utility rates. Obviously your mileage will vary depending on where you are, and a company can business expense/get other deals that might not just be slapped on the utility company's page.
Obviously, I think this amount is probably exagerrated. I suspect that its a small fraction of even that, but I went with what I was given. Kinda like when I calculated the size of a meat cube of all the russians that died in ukraine if their ministry's statements were true.