I’ve recently been told that
it’s only the training that demands these massive datacenters, so it is stupid to be upset about treat printing when it’s just training that requires these massive data centers. Surely these data centers don’t stick around and their owners don’t demand more and more of them for even more training, you silly emotional Luddites. 
Meanwhile many people who are actually involved in the programming shudder in horror of what lies ahead of us.
I took one year of programming in college and that’s all I need to know that I will resist as much IoT or bazinga slop as possible. But FWIW it was kind of cool to fool around with data.
deleted by creator
That’s what the smug bazinga fuck claimed, and even added a pithy “no investigation no right to speak” cherry picked site appropriation.
deleted by creator
Just running some data through the resulting model is still somewhat expensive since they have so many parameters. And of course for a lot of things, you want to train the model on new data you’re putting through it anyways.
The proselytizer treated it as a gotcha, so I appreciate the additional information.
In their defense, I’m sure there are tons of actually useful machine learning models that don’t use that much power once trained.
I have an iPhone with Face ID and I think the way they did that was to train a model on lots of people’s faces, and they just ship that expensive-to-train model with the operating system and then it trains a little bit more when you use face ID. I can’t imagine it uses that much power since you’re running the algorithm every time you open the phone.
I’m sure any model worth anything probably does require a lot of training and energy usage. I guess it really depends on the eventual utility whether it’s worth it.
We all have devices in our pockets powerful and well connected enough to do just about everything we use “the cloud” for except for large scale data collection for advertising and surveillance. And even then these devices are still capable of being used for surveillance and advertising effectiveness monitoring, just not as well. If our government and the supposedly wise hand of the free market cared more about global warming than global surveillance and financial dominance, they would have already shuttered most of the data center capacity in the US. Then again there are still mining farms turning electricity into monopoly money.
Idk what I’m trying to say here, I’m just bitterly disappointed in the state of the society I live in.
💣 it’s my go to emoji for some reason
Unironically I think the world would be a better place if all the largest data centers went boom.
Yeah
We did make it like 325,000 years without data centers
I completely agree in terms of personal computing like storing photos, documents, notes, and so on. At most, they could be encrypted locally and stored remotely so that multiple devices can use the data.
There are still plenty of use cases for server-oriented data processing. Most “infrastructure” related things work well that way. Cases where data needs to be quickly read and written from a number of different locations and the information isn’t really secret or personal. I am biased since I work on one of those systems. But there are so many internal systems at companies that really don’t need end-to-end encryption either. Although maybe some day things will still move in that direction.
damn that’s crazy. ChatGPT, think of some ways to make that number go down
ChatGPT: “I (or do I mean us - haha) am going to solve this problem. But first I need more juice so I can solve the problem. Hey, I can do a lot of stuff - but I can’t change the science!”
In unrelated news, I’ve decided to become a GUI developer.may be 7.62 times higher than
about 662% – or 7.62 times – higher than
They can’t keep their numbers straight.
deleted by creator
662% is 6.62 but an increase of 662% is 7.62
to show a 62% increase you multiple a number by 1.62, to show a 162% increase it’s 2.62, etc (262 is 162% more than 100)
i’m not a math guy don’t @ me
You got it exactly!
“662% higher than” is equal to 762% (7.62 times).
“7.62 times higher” equals 862%.
With the way they phrased it its wrong.
662% higher than is 7.62x
About 662% (of) is 6.62x
Yeah, seems correct but just oddly phrased.
I am a very non-tech person, can someone explain to me why “junk data” isn’t regularly deleted?
Not sure what you mean by “junk data”, but hoarding data is the least of our issues. It’s the computational power and cooling that eats up all the energy, not the “cold storage”.
