Good thought... I think you're wrong because the dominant factor is bandwidth over the interconnect. In this case they're using 5Gbps over Ethernet; compare that to 80-120 Gbps for a Thunderbolt 5 connected Mac Studio cluster: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFgTxr5yst0
Your workflow is unusual, oftentimes there is a vigorous back and forth, or a desired output like code generation, etc where a low tk/s drastically effects ux and user productivity.
But the real kicker here is the 90s ttft, that means you ask a question and don't see anything for a full minute and a half.
Cool that it's possible but basically unusable performance characteristics. For an 8192 token prompt they report a ~1.5 minute time-to-first-token and then 8.30tk/s from there. For context ChatGPT is typically <<1s ttft and ~50tk/s.
> Isn't that basically the same as me giving you $80? I don't see at all how that's me "basically getting that investment back".
It's a good question, what I think you're missing is that if the market is valuing me (NVIDIA) at 25x revenue then it's more like I traded you (OpenAI) a GPU it cost me $80 to make for $100 worth of OpenAI stock, and I got a bonus $2500 in market cap of my own stock (which existing shareholders like).
IOW for every incremental "$100" in revenue (circular or otherwise), existing shareholders get paid "$2500" in equity (NVIDIA appreciation + OpenAI shares).
This "works" for NVIDIA and its shareholders as long as they/the market keeps thinking $100 of OpenAI stock is a good price for a GPU. If OpenAI tangibly fails to deliver on this valuation then NVIDIA may wind up in the red on these deals.
Caveat: it's a bit more complicated than that as OpenAI doesn't typically buy/operate GPUs directly afaict, rather they team up with the big cloud providers like AMZN (also part of the deal). But it's an useful way to wrap your head around the economics, I think (open to correction, not a domain of professional expertise).
I don't see anything _inherently_ unethical about this as some comments seem to imply. It's definitely riskier than accepting cash, in which case you're free not to play, but it's a calculated risk based on future expectations of growth by OpenAI. Granted there are some sketchy incentives qua existing shareholders that could materialize in pump and dump dynamics.
1. Equality under the law is important in its own right. Even if a law is wrong, it isn’t right to allow particular corporations to flaunt it in a way that individuals would go to prison for.
2. GPL does not allow you to take the code, compress it in your latent space, and then sell that to consumers without open sourcing your code.
Pure ad hominem FUD. “This guy sometimes disagrees with scientists employed by the government, don’t listen to him!”.
The technical details are beyond my understanding but I’ve heard from a PhD in the field that Masterjohn’s understanding of metabolism is second to none. Whether his protocols work or not is certainly a case by case matter (like any health protocol), but he always appears to substantiate it with well-cited lines of argument, and is willing to engage with interlocutors.
As for spending years with changing protocols without getting anywhere besides spending lots of money, well that can be said for people with complex issues who go the institutionally approved route as well. It isn’t discrediting in its own right that a protocol didn’t work for some.
I’m not quite understanding: you’re saying you deploy your site one way, then crawl it, then redeploy it via the zipfile you created? And why is SSR relevant to the discussion?
If LLMs can't find the answer then people will go ask it on SO. If SO is liable to shut down because the majority of their business got wiped out then somebody with a vested interest (like say, MSFT/OpenAI) will step in and bail them out (or create a clone, or something functionally equivalent).
This idea that the "homeless problem in SF" is primarily a problem of "people being unable to afford homes in SF" is just laughable.
All you need to do is walk down almost any street in San Francisco and take a secondary glance at the homeless people you see, and its obvious that "can't afford a home" is just one of their many problems. Most of these people couldn't hold a job because they're addicted to really hardcore drugs (you might even get an opportunity to watch them smoke or inject some during this secondary glance), and often severely mentally ill. "Homeless" is to a great extent besides the point, this is a mental illness / drug addiction problem.
Even if you could find a solid place for $800/mo in SF, these people wouldn't be in it because the vast majority of them are unfit for employment. If that was really the issue then we could solve all this by just sending them to Omaha.