Comment by dsalfdslfdsa
1 year ago
"Efficient" and "better" are very different descriptors of a learning algorithm.
The human brain does what it does using about 20W. LLM power usage is somewhat unfavourable compared to that.
1 year ago
"Efficient" and "better" are very different descriptors of a learning algorithm.
The human brain does what it does using about 20W. LLM power usage is somewhat unfavourable compared to that.
You mean energy-efficient, this would be neuron, or synapse-efficient.
I don't think we can say that, either. After all, the brain is able to perform both processing and storage with its neurons. The quotes about LLMs are talking only about connections between data items stored elsewhere.
Stored where?
6 replies →
Also, these two networks achieves vastly different results, per watt consumed. A NN creates a painting in 4s on my M2 MacBook; an artist in 4 hours. Are their used joules equivalent? How many humans would it take to simulate MacOS?
Horsepower comparisons here are nuanced and fatally tricky!
Humans aren't able to project an image from their neurons onto a disk like ANNs can, if they could it would also be very fast. That 4 hour estimate includes all the mechanical problems of manipulating paint.
What software are you using for local NN generation of paintings? Even so, the training cost of that NN is significant.
The general point is valid though - for example, a computer is much more efficient at finding primes, or encrypting data, than humans.
1 reply →
It is using about 20W and then a person takes a single airplane ride between the coasts. And watches a movie on the way.