vivendi

joined 1 month ago
[–] vivendi@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago (5 children)

It's not adapting to change, it is fighting change

[–] vivendi@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago

I can't really provide any further insight without finding the damn paper again (academia is cooked) but Inference is famously low-cost, this is basically "average user damage to the environment" comparison, so for example if a user chats with ChatGPT they gobble less water comparatively than downloading 4K porn (at least according to this particular paper)

As with any science, statistics are varied and to actually analyze this with rigor we'd need to sit down and really go down deep and hard on the data. Which is more than I intended when I made a passing comment lol

[–] vivendi@programming.dev 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

According to https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.21015

The absolute most monstrous, energy guzzling model tested needed 10 MW of power to train.

Most models need less than that, and non-frontier models can even be trained on gaming hardware with comparatively little energy consumption.

That paper by the way says there is a 2.4x increase YoY for model training compute, BUT that paper doesn't mention DeepSeek, which rocked the western AI world with comparatively little training cost (2.7 M GPU Hours in total)

Some companies offset their model training environmental damage with renewable and whatever bullshit, so the actual daily usage cost is more important than the huge cost at the start (Drop by drop is an ocean formed - Persian proverb)

[–] vivendi@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago

This particular graph is because a lot of people freaked out over "AI draining oceans" that's why the original paper (I'll look for it when I have time, I have a exam tomorrow. Fucking higher ed man) made this graph

[–] vivendi@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

This is actually misleading in the other direction: ChatGPT is a particularly intensive model. You can run a GPT-4o class model on a consumer mid to high end GPU which would then use something in the ballpark of gaming in terms of environmental impact.

You can also run a cluster of 3090s or 4090s to train the model, which is what people do actually, in which case it's still in the same range as gaming. (And more productive than 8 hours of WoW grind while chugging a warmed up Nutella glass as a drink).

Models like Google's Gemma (NOT Gemini these are two completely different things) are insanely power efficient.

[–] vivendi@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago (7 children)

Every image has a few color channels/layers. If it's a natural photograph, the noise patterns in these layers are different. If it's AI diffusion however those layers will be uniform.

One thing you can do is to overlay noise that resembles features that don't exist (using e.g Stable Diffusion) inside the color channels of a picture. This will make AI see features that don't exist.

Nightshade layers some form of feature noise on top of an image as an alpha inlaid pattern which makes the quality of the image look ASS and it's also defeated if a model is specifically trained to remove nightshade.

Ultimately this kind of stupid arms race shit is futile. We need to adapt completely new paradigms for completely new situations.

[–] vivendi@programming.dev 4 points 1 week ago (9 children)

Fuck with their noise models.

Create a system that generates pseudorandom hostile noise (noise that triggers neural feature detection) and layer it on top of the image. This will create false neural circuits.

[–] vivendi@programming.dev 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

China has that massive rate because it manufactures for the US, the US itself is a huge polluter for military and luxury NOT manufacturing

[–] vivendi@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (9 children)

I will cite the scientific article later when I find it, but essentially you're wrong.

[–] vivendi@programming.dev 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Not directly, but the democrats are a right wing bourgeoisie liberal party, so they essentially serve the interests of capital

The interests of capital eventually leads to imperialism and when that starts to crack (<- you're here), fascism. Unless the actual socialists win.

And you know what? I don't think socialism had a chance in yankee land. They have spent decades upon decades brainwashing the population in a highly compatible fashion. The highest point of American radical action is just some adventurism terrorist shit that doesn't do anything. Ask Americans to actually organize and do vanguard action and they'll screech at you, because the bourgeoisie media and education has made you an slave inside your own brain.

So yeah, democrats or whatever. Why does it matter if fascism comes in 9 years or 4 years, you guys are straight up fucked.

If you live in yankee land, emigrate your ass before you lose your ass

[–] vivendi@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago

It's an S for Summation

It should be a D though, because it fucks students

view more: ‹ prev next ›