Not The Onion

20546 readers

1771 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

676

Sam Altman would like remind you that humans use a lot of energy, too | TechCrunch (techcrunch.com)

submitted 2 days ago by supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

174 comments fedilink hide all child comments

“But it also takes a lot of energy to train a human,” Altman said. “It takes like 20 years of life and all of the food you eat during that time before you get smart. And not only that, it took the very widespread evolution of the 100 billion people that have ever lived and learned not to get eaten by predators and learned how to figure out science and whatever, to produce you.”

So in his view, the fair comparison is, “If you ask ChatGPT a question, how much energy does it take once its model is trained to answer that question versus a human? And probably, AI has already caught up on an energy efficiency basis, measured that way.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Well another argument they have is the amount of waste that comes with the churn of fiat currency, where we inflate asset values in order to deliberately grow aggregate demand.

The housing bubble for instance was obviously cheap debt, which was used to grow aggregate consumption, by rewarding asset holders thus encouraging them to offload their asset to increase the velocity of money.

On the gold standard the average mortgage was 7 years, which was because there was less need to grow the money supply, because we werent trying to force an inflation target. Massive windfalls werent common, and thus housing wasnt being bid up via the cantillon effect, so was better for society in many ways when consumption wasnt being forced onto people.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago

The problem was that things started breaking at scale under the gold standard. The great depression happened under the gold standard, and financial institutions had no ability to do anything to fix the mass hysteria.

Yes, the house as an investment vehicle rather than a house is a problem, but it's not because of fiat currency per se. The population density increasing under a capitalistic system pretty much guarantees that housing becomes a speculative asset regardless of the specifics of the currency system.

Meanwhile BTC has been wildly unpredictable and when it's at its most hyped, massively deflationary which is also a terrible thing.