AI Training Slop
-
This post did not contain any content.
Gosh so many real problems being solved with computers! I always knew they would be useful one day.
-
I see. Well, I checked your post history because I thought "Heck, they sound smart, maybe I'm the problem." and my conclusion based on the floral language you often use with others is that you are clearly provoking on purpose.
Unfortunately I don't have the luxury of time to argue this way so I'll just block you, this way we won't have to interact in the future.
Take care and may we never speak again.
Erby glerby skeibledee thought terminating cliches groppily boop
-
This post did not contain any content.
I just saw an ad for a “training course” to “qualify” people to interact with AI as a profession.
-
Feel free to explain the down votes.
If it wasn't clear the my point was that self hosting addresses mostly privacy for the user but that is only one dimension addressed. It does not necessarily address the ecological impact. I was honestly hoping this community to care more.
What's clear is that you don't realize how much energy AI actually uses up and you ate up propaganda that you are spreading right now. A querry that runs for 20s to generate an image on a card that uses up at most 350W/h during heavy gaming sessions isn't magically going to doom the world. Chill out.
-
What's clear is that you don't realize how much energy AI actually uses up and you ate up propaganda that you are spreading right now. A querry that runs for 20s to generate an image on a card that uses up at most 350W/h during heavy gaming sessions isn't magically going to doom the world. Chill out.
I'll assume you didn't misread my question on purpose, I didn't ask about inference, I asked about training.
-
I'll assume you didn't misread my question on purpose, I didn't ask about inference, I asked about training.
How much energy was used to bring the truckload of groceries into the shop that one time so hundreds of people can use it?
-
How much energy was used to bring the truckload of groceries into the shop that one time so hundreds of people can use it?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Great point, so are you saying there is a certain threshold above which training is energetically useful but under which it is not, e.g. if training of a large model is used by 1 person, it is not sustainable but if 1 million people use it (assuming it's done productively, not spam or scam) then it is fine?
-
Great point, so are you saying there is a certain threshold above which training is energetically useful but under which it is not, e.g. if training of a large model is used by 1 person, it is not sustainable but if 1 million people use it (assuming it's done productively, not spam or scam) then it is fine?
So you're saying if 1 guy made 1 million results it would offset the training?
-
So you're saying if 1 guy made 1 million results it would offset the training?
Results? I have no idea what you are talking about. I thought we were discussing the training cost (my initial question) and that the truckload was an analogy to argue that the impact from that upfront costs is spread among users.
-
I specifically asked about the training part, not the fine tuning but thanks to clarifying.
Edit : you might be interested in helping with https://lemmy.world/post/30563785/17397757 please
The point is that OP (most probably) didn’t train it — they downloaded a pre-trained model and only did fine-tuning and inference.
-
Ah when stuff is behind a password but not encrypted and still on their servers. Yes.
Correct.
-
The point is that OP (most probably) didn’t train it — they downloaded a pre-trained model and only did fine-tuning and inference.
Right, my point is exactly that though, that OP by having just downloaded it might not realize the training costs. They might be low but on average they are quite high, at least relative to fine-tuning or inference. So my question was precisely to highlight that running locally while not knowing the training cost is naive, ecologically speaking. They did clarify though that they do not care so that's coherent for them. I'm insisting on that point because maybe others would think "Oh... I can run a model locally, then it's not <<evil>>" so I'm trying to clarify (and please let me know if I'm wrong) that it is good for privacy but the upfront training cost are not insignificant and might lead some people to prefer NOT relying on very costly to train models and prefer others, or a even a totally different solution.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I've given up and assume that my friends and family have already handed over my contact info, pictures, messages, DNA, etc
-
Right, my point is exactly that though, that OP by having just downloaded it might not realize the training costs. They might be low but on average they are quite high, at least relative to fine-tuning or inference. So my question was precisely to highlight that running locally while not knowing the training cost is naive, ecologically speaking. They did clarify though that they do not care so that's coherent for them. I'm insisting on that point because maybe others would think "Oh... I can run a model locally, then it's not <<evil>>" so I'm trying to clarify (and please let me know if I'm wrong) that it is good for privacy but the upfront training cost are not insignificant and might lead some people to prefer NOT relying on very costly to train models and prefer others, or a even a totally different solution.
The model exists already — abstaining from using it doesn’t make the energy consumption go away. I don’t think it’s reasonable to let historic energy costs drive what you do, else you would never touch a computer.
-
The model exists already — abstaining from using it doesn’t make the energy consumption go away. I don’t think it’s reasonable to let historic energy costs drive what you do, else you would never touch a computer.
Indeed, the argument is mostly for future usage and future models. The overall point being that assuming training costs are negligible is either naive or showing that one does not care much for the environment.
From a business perspective, if I'm Microsoft or OpenAI, and I see a trend to prioritize models that minimize training costs, or even that users are avoiding costly to train model, I will adapt to it. On the other hand if I see nobody cares for that, or that even building more data center drives the value up, I will build bigger models regardless of usage or energy cost.
The point is that training is expensive and that pointing only to inference is like the Titanic going full speed ahead toward the iceberg saying how small it is. It is not small.
-
Just curious, do you know how many trees were MOLESTED to create that air you're breathing?
I know at least seven were. It would've been more but I got a splinter and that really turned me off.
-
Straw-hat much or just learning about logistics and sourcing in our globalized supply chain?
Satirically pointing out that worrying about electricity usage for model creation is ridiculous.
It's already spent. The model exists. It's probably MORE moral to use it as much as possible to get some positive value out of it. Otherwise it was just wasted.
-
Satirically pointing out that worrying about electricity usage for model creation is ridiculous.
It's already spent. The model exists. It's probably MORE moral to use it as much as possible to get some positive value out of it. Otherwise it was just wasted.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Yes indeed, yet my point is that we keep on training models TODAY so if keep on not caring, then we do postpone the same problem, cf https://lemmy.world/post/30563785/17400518
Basically yes, use trained model today if you want but if we don't set a trend then despite the undeniable ecological impact, there will be no corrective measure.
It's not enough to just say "Oh well, it used a ton of energy. We MUST use it now."
Anyway, my overall point was that training takes a ton of energy. I'm not asking your or OP or anyone else NOT to use such models. I'm solely pointing out that doing so without understand the process that lead to such models, including but not limited to energy for training, is naive at best.
Edit: it's also important to point out alternatives that are not models, namely there are already plenty of specialized tools that are MORE efficient AND accurate today. So even if the model took a ton of energy to train, in such case it's still not rational to use it. It's a sunk cost.
-
I've given up and assume that my friends and family have already handed over my contact info, pictures, messages, DNA, etc
Sorry.
I didn't know you minded.
-
This post did not contain any content.
hmm. tools are useful for what they are designed for. maybe design a bot to design bots.
