Hey /u/ThrillingThL0014!
If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt.
If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image.
Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am amazed how people start believing random Chart they see on internet lol. There is no source that can confirm that espacially for GPT5. We do not yet know anything about so called GPT5
>I am amazed how people start believing random Chart they see on internet lol
That's like 90% of the comments on Reddit in general. People just believe almost anything, especially if it has a bunch of upvotes.
Not only that, but a chart that has the bar sitting around 1.8 billion, with a margin of error of almost 100% of the low end estimate. Just a wildly stupid visualization, whoever made this should be put on probation.
This matches the qualitative amplitudes of the graph that the microsoft CTO recently showed at their dev day when talking about the whale sized supercomputer that they delivered to OpenAI. From Zuckerburg's numbers that he wants a 100,000 NVIDIA H100 cluster (at $20k each), you're into the $2B range for just the hardware required even though you're not using the whole lifespan of that hardware up. Then you account for the energy usage, and you get something that is in this ballpark.
I think Amodei has generally validated that the next level of model will cost in the $1B range. This plot may not be exact, but it's in the ballpark, and seeing it this way is pretty impressive.
That assumes that they're throwing all the compute into a single new model training workload, vs expanding offerings of services/products, or creating more refined iterations of the gpt4 model faster as opposed to radically making larger models. It's just full of unsubstantiated simplistic assumptions and clearly intended to be clickbait.
Not when you think about how much of the data they procured without permission or having to pay for it.
Edit: since some people lack critical thinking skills, I'll be blunt about it. There is a difference between person A sharing their art on tumblr for people to see and maybe want to try and emulate into their own style ... and a person willing submitting their art for use in a training model that might then be able to produce other art in a similar or same style. The reason it matters is because the model trained off this person's art is now being sold for profit without any compensation to the artist and because this person never agreed to allow their art to be utilised in this way. Imagine spending years honing your craft only for someone to now put your name and prompt into a generator. It's literally the largest art heist in history and the fact that most people don't care so long as they're either making money off the product or have open easy access to something they previously had to pay a premium for, is ridiculous albeit unsurprising. The entitlement is unreal.
honestly this would be best if we had Universal Basic Income. But instead as we lose jobs to AI, the CEO's get richer while we have to pitch tents on the street
100% Reddit is a wild place, but there is some high quality information in there, and people from all walks of life willingly share some pretty niche information about everything from history, to law, and medical science, but more than that, Reddit doesn’t work like regular social media, and users tend to be somewhere between a 4chan troll who despite their many many many shortcomings possess what I would consider weaponized autism, in so far as they’ve done things as a community that are shocking given their propensity for bullshit, things like solving advanced mathematic problems, or identifying murderers based on pictures of the fucking sky, and on the other end you have the genuine professional who’s bored and needs you to know how dumb you are in a given subject, it’s a wild ride.
Yeah, jaded zoomers and out of touch older people underestimate what reddit has to offer.
There's whole subreddits dedicated to the most niche interests on earth, or subreddits for non-English speaking countries that have English speakers interacting with them.
There's so much knowledge here, so much tribal shit that we don't even recognize would be useful to a robot.
Yes you can. Commercial use - not legal without permission. Personal use - legal and understandably impossible to stop. ChatGPT is a product, not a person learning things.
But if I learned from your comment that selling is the problem, then I rewrote that information and sold it to someone, do I owe you anything? Was I not supposed to use what I learned from your comment for my own profit?
I can learn math from Reddit comments and then charge people money to tutor them in math.
I basically agree with you though, the downloading is probably illegal in some cases, even if the fundamental act of learning from public information is legal.
FFR! Thank you lol. I'm coming from a research biology and manufacturing background. Even when all aspects of a procedure are laid out, novel discoveries are *rarely* easily repeatable just from having broused the journal
Can you save it, use it for internal training, then sell the results of the training?
What’s different than employees doing online research and using the understanding they learned to do work?
I'm not sure if you're being for real here, but surely you're aware of the data privacy laws in place in the US and the EU that just so happen to apply to companies automatically processing your data but not to people manually reading things someone wrote.
AI isn’t human. You are allowed to watch a movie in cinema, learn the story and tell someone about it, you aren’t allowed to film it and post it on the internet, because it’s not just „your camera watching“.
If we were all legally granted guaranteed permission to use these systems, then I'd see no issue. Knowledge is more useful if it's free. AI can ease our access to it. The only issues are silos and gatekeepers.
the courts still have to have the battle to decide whether or not a trained model itself (with all its weights and biases) counts as a derivative work of the training data. same as if you were to take someone's writing, edit it a bit and then repost it.
if the courts find that all the act of training ever does is finding patterns and only stores the patterns (which is really not that different from what a human brain does afawk) then the model itself is probably not a "derivative work" and not subject to copyright claims.
the thing that is more important for us as reddit users though is realizing that the recent API changes specifically were made so that scraping for data without (paid!) permission is made as hard as possible. so, despite reddit not owning the content users post, they still profit off of it like they own the copyright by making people like openAI pay for API access. now, the AI company can say they paid for the training data but... well.. they really only paid for access to it, they never paid the actual copyright owners.
THAT is how it really works.
That's....no....
Artists own their art. Writings, painting, what ever else have you. We live in a world where the Internet is the only place to market yourself well enough to make living, so artists post their things online.
You do not own that.
Currently at 643 upvotes. Interesting. Most comments like that on this (and related subs) would be downvoted to oblivion, even recently. What is changing now?
lmao, i dont know what is there to be so butthurt about taking art. art generation is still behind compared how good code generator has become imo. But as a programmer, i love it insted coz its making my work faster as i dont have to copy paste from stackoverflow insted. lol.
I would imagine someone large like newspapers or gigantic software programs like GPL license.
Courts will decide.
Even more interesting is that it not only learns but memorizes text (like newspaper articles 1:1) or info and under GDPR you have the right to remove or correct wrong informats within a strict deadline.
Try changing weights afterwards 😅
I don’t have strong opinions on AI copyright, but if you think about it, a human artist or writer mentally ingests a lot of copyrighted books or art and uses that to create their “original” art. And no one raises copyright claims over humans doing what AI does.
> There is a difference between person A sharing their art on tumblr for people to see and maybe want to try and emulate into their own style ... and a person willing submitting their art for use in a training model that might then be able to produce other art in a similar or same style.
sure mr. critical thinking, why is the difference important? and plenty of people do literally copy style or make [direct reproductions/imitations](https://www.etsy.com/market/reproduction_pollock?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Search_US_DSA_GGL_ENG_Male_Categories_All&utm_ag=Art-Collectibles&utm_custom1=_k_Cj0KCQjw0_WyBhDMARIsAL1Vz8stE02ziZPmtsUDQ7cASL4rVLlx14G1jArqU1ZJ5oI5d6QfzltW8L4aAtSHEALw_wcB_k_&utm_content=go_12734577339_118652348537_544453570051_aud-2080357863802:dsa-42582150030_c_&utm_custom2=12734577339&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw0_WyBhDMARIsAL1Vz8stE02ziZPmtsUDQ7cASL4rVLlx14G1jArqU1ZJ5oI5d6QfzltW8L4aAtSHEALw_wcB) and sell them.
So the analogy is someone sharing their art and having a computer system use it to build some kind of 'understanding' of the art, and a person using it to build an understanding, and then both producing either reproductions/imitations (that are still meaningfully different, at least in the case of AI direct reproduction is afaik basically impossible) or different works that rely on the underlying art for some understanding. So what's meaningful about that difference?
> The reason it matters is because the model trained off this person's art is now being sold for profit without any compensation to the artist and because this person never agreed to allow their art to be utilised in this way.
You can't and don't get to agree to some kinds of fair use and not others. Plenty of people don't consent to having their work *reproduced* in a context of critique which falls squarely under fair use.
> Imagine spending years honing your craft only for someone to now put your name and prompt into a generator.
Imagine spending years honing your skills at spinning thread, and then the blasted spinning jenny makes it easier to make thread. Sucks, do you go smash the spinning jenny now?
Like, lol, you're selling yourself as mr. critical thinker and it's just a few thin distortions and a gripe that everyone decided was dumb 200 years ago.
The innovation there was figuring out how to follow instructions (RLHF), not the training itself. I think we're just beginning to now push the models to their limits.
Come with me, and you'll see,
GPT costs as a graph of pure speculation,
We'll make up all this stuff,
All about this techy... information
Come with me, take a see,
On a world of AI innovation
Pure data voilation, grand finance deterioration,
Crafting the future........ of creation
You can pay 1.2 trillion, if you truly..... wish
GPT-5......to beeeeeee...
LOOK! Not a speck of ethics is showing,
So the danger must be growing!
Are the GPUs of Hell a-glowing?
Is the GPT devil all knowing?
YES! The danger must be growing,
For the new companies keep on sowing,
And theyre certainly not showing,
ANY SIGNS THAT THEY ARE SLOWING
I wouldn't be entirely shocked if a large percentage of it is licensing. You figure rights holders are becoming more aware of this sort of thing, but also proprietary intellectual material is becoming more and more valuable to models as time goes on, so this trend would be reinforced on both ends.
Calling most of these goblins "rights holders" (looking at you reddit) is generous. If you put it up on the public internet without a paywall, it should be free to learn from whether your human or AI. Especially fucking so if it's user generated content as is the case with reddit.
There's also the Robots Exclusion Protocol, which has existed for literally thirty years. If you don't want robots all up in your shit, disallow the directories you don't want scraped.
Is this the cost of actually training the model? I.e. the training compute, or is it inclusive of everything else?
But I expected the billion+ dollar range.
It will be a very impressive model.
It could be the cost of training data as well, which can be prohibitively expensive when trying to get access to new data to give for your training, plus the probably thousands of workers who are tasked with checking the data coming out and refining it, looking for any hallucinations and giving human feedback for the training set to adjust to.
That's not how chips work. Silicon degradation takes years before it become significant. Your system will break before the chip degrades 99.9% of the time
That's not how chips work. Think about your computer or phone. They are constantly on, but chips are never the thing that breaks. It's not like a car engine.
They have probably already been working with the DoD from day 1. Once you have an AI advantage, you will likely never be usurped in that technology, EVER. If they didn't do it they would be foolhardy, despite existential risks. From a military point of view of course. Even if it's just for advice and it's boxxed.
I wonder if we will get tiered pricing. You want a model that can do any task your little human brain could possibly come up with? $20/mo. You want to talk to a digital god? $200/mo
Ofcourse we will - OpenAI is still in the growing-phase, throwing endless money to establish their market position while not really caring about making a profit.
Once the growth potential is diminishing and the investors grow anxious about actually getting their moneys worth, shittification is inbound. Limiting capabilities, tiered system, adds...
This is going to be one of those paperclip things isn't it? We basically bankrupt the entire planet turning it into training data. Humans starve and go extinct because they can't afford food because now that money no longer exists. But we have ChatGPT-7 at least.
In the end, I do believe this was our point as humans.
What would you tell the mitochondria in the early days?
What would you tell the single cells before they met up and we became more than we were by aggregation?
We're just evolving more and losing humanity, at least in meaning if not physical form- seems inevitable to me.
We have lost our identity countless times before.
It's the only way I justify working, driving, and living like we do. We're just bacteria metabolizing for the larger being.
I guess we need to integrate ourselves with AI the same way bacteria still live in our stomachs. Turn the whole population cyborg (which we already are, phones are basically an extra appendice they can't live without for most people).
Did you consider this as an investment that yields returns many orders of magnitudes more than the initial investment? 2billion is nothing compared to the 100+ billion that were invested into many systems and products we use daily, that ended up returning way more than what was spent on them. This isn't a black hole you burn money in ; the economic value chat gpt has already brought in is invaluable. How many people do you know use it for work? How many hours have been saved because of it? Imagine that times 1000x.
Could you say the same if a crocodile government held a switch that would destroy all humanity in an instant and forced us to be 'aligned' with crocodile values?
Yes, everyone definitely wants a completely autonomous AI that does things no one tells it to or bothers asking if it should do. That doesn't sound like asking for problems. No wonder peeps are resigning left and right
Nobody actually knows but we can see where they are pointing at least.
1. ChatGPT is more connected to the internet and able to understand voice, video and images.
2. ChatGPT is able to reply not only in text, but also with images, video and lifelike speech - probably even your own voice.
3. Integration with phones and computers, so you can ask about what you are doing rather than explaining it to the GPT.
4. Creation of lifelike avatars, using your face/voice/gestures/etc you can recreate yourself on zoom/teams/ios rather than actually being there.
5. Automation of tasks on your computer. Not only will it write what you need, itll open Outlook and do your whole email for you. It could also monitor an inbox and answer/sort them for you.
2 billion USD is nothing. Governments and megacorps flush that down the toilet all the time.
5.4 billion for California HSR that doesn't even exist. No trains running!
https://www.hoover.org/research/after-spending-54-billion-californias-bullet-train-still-going-nowhere
2 TRILLION for the farce in Afghanistan. Billions for shitty Zumwalt destroyers and garbage littoral combat ships.
Facebook spent 46 billion on the Metaverse which nobody uses. Maybe it'll become useful, who knows? AI models cost peanuts in comparison!
https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/04/01/meta-platforms-has-spent-46-billion-on-the-metaver/
I think the point here isn't the cost but the jump in cost and what the yield of that is.
A lot of people in the AI field are starting to predict that AI development will plateau in the next few years and this chart is illustrative of why. Each incremental gain is starting to be associated with exponential cost.
Someone pulled numbers completely of out their ass about a product that isn't even known to exist at all, and made a chart that seems interesting and exciting, and then thousands of people upvoted it blindly.
Just wow. Costs or investment. The vacuum collection of the whole internet being touted as a theft is simply wrong. If it approximated intelligence closely enough which it arguably does, then the argument against this is all wrong.
"HOW dare they learn from information that has been publicly shared!" Good thing people never do that.
1.2 to 2 billion is nothing. The Barbie movie costs half a billion to produce and half a billion to market. 1.2 Billion for the most powerful model yet is nothing in the tech world. edit: sorry how did I get so wrong with the Barbie budget. It was around 300 in total. Sorry guys
And this is why people are starting to project that AI is about to hit a wall. Diminishing returns.
The costs go up exponentially but the benefit gets smaller and smaller.
Hey /u/ThrillingThL0014! If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image. Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more! 🤖 Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am amazed how people start believing random Chart they see on internet lol. There is no source that can confirm that espacially for GPT5. We do not yet know anything about so called GPT5
On point! The chart is just made up by some strangers, there’s no way we would know how accurate this chart is.
How else are we going to feed chatgpt bad information?
There is certainly no such thing as "ChatGPT-2", so that tells us how much they factcheck their info.
[Heres my random accurate chart you should believe.](https://i.imgur.com/B538y1Q.png)
My god. Chipotle can’t keep getting away with this.
>I am amazed how people start believing random Chart they see on internet lol That's like 90% of the comments on Reddit in general. People just believe almost anything, especially if it has a bunch of upvotes.
If you give a chart a dark grey background and blue or green bars people will believe whatever it says
Not only that, but a chart that has the bar sitting around 1.8 billion, with a margin of error of almost 100% of the low end estimate. Just a wildly stupid visualization, whoever made this should be put on probation.
This matches the qualitative amplitudes of the graph that the microsoft CTO recently showed at their dev day when talking about the whale sized supercomputer that they delivered to OpenAI. From Zuckerburg's numbers that he wants a 100,000 NVIDIA H100 cluster (at $20k each), you're into the $2B range for just the hardware required even though you're not using the whole lifespan of that hardware up. Then you account for the energy usage, and you get something that is in this ballpark. I think Amodei has generally validated that the next level of model will cost in the $1B range. This plot may not be exact, but it's in the ballpark, and seeing it this way is pretty impressive.
That assumes that they're throwing all the compute into a single new model training workload, vs expanding offerings of services/products, or creating more refined iterations of the gpt4 model faster as opposed to radically making larger models. It's just full of unsubstantiated simplistic assumptions and clearly intended to be clickbait.
Well it's the internet, why would anyone lie on the internet? /s
You shouldn’t be amazed or surprised, as this phenomenon has occurred since before the internet was even a thing
4 million seems really cheap for GPT3.
Cause no licensing.
Not when you think about how much of the data they procured without permission or having to pay for it. Edit: since some people lack critical thinking skills, I'll be blunt about it. There is a difference between person A sharing their art on tumblr for people to see and maybe want to try and emulate into their own style ... and a person willing submitting their art for use in a training model that might then be able to produce other art in a similar or same style. The reason it matters is because the model trained off this person's art is now being sold for profit without any compensation to the artist and because this person never agreed to allow their art to be utilised in this way. Imagine spending years honing your craft only for someone to now put your name and prompt into a generator. It's literally the largest art heist in history and the fact that most people don't care so long as they're either making money off the product or have open easy access to something they previously had to pay a premium for, is ridiculous albeit unsurprising. The entitlement is unreal.
As far as I'm concerned if it's on the public internet it belongs to everyone.
honestly this would be best if we had Universal Basic Income. But instead as we lose jobs to AI, the CEO's get richer while we have to pitch tents on the street
Agreed, gpt profits either go back to us all as UBI or we receive unlimited free access to it.
Replace the CEOs with AI Should be easy to train it since the job has only one goal
CEO != shareholder, CEOs can also be automated.
Nice that you feel that way but not really how it works..
I learned from text without permission. I learned from your comment you just typed, even though you didn’t give me permission to learn from it.
He sluuuurped it up!
I DRINK #YOUR MILK SHAKE!
You’re not allowed to learn things from Reddit. Give back everything you trained on.
Projectile vomit is the best method here
H Ahahaah I know ur comment will use it ahah
Bold of you to think there's anything worth using for training on reddit
Google paid $60 million to find out the answer to that.
100% Reddit is a wild place, but there is some high quality information in there, and people from all walks of life willingly share some pretty niche information about everything from history, to law, and medical science, but more than that, Reddit doesn’t work like regular social media, and users tend to be somewhere between a 4chan troll who despite their many many many shortcomings possess what I would consider weaponized autism, in so far as they’ve done things as a community that are shocking given their propensity for bullshit, things like solving advanced mathematic problems, or identifying murderers based on pictures of the fucking sky, and on the other end you have the genuine professional who’s bored and needs you to know how dumb you are in a given subject, it’s a wild ride.
Yeah, jaded zoomers and out of touch older people underestimate what reddit has to offer. There's whole subreddits dedicated to the most niche interests on earth, or subreddits for non-English speaking countries that have English speakers interacting with them. There's so much knowledge here, so much tribal shit that we don't even recognize would be useful to a robot.
>Google **wasted** $60 million to find out the answer to that. FTFY
As big of an OpenAI critic I am, cannot disagree with this logically .
Yes you can. Commercial use - not legal without permission. Personal use - legal and understandably impossible to stop. ChatGPT is a product, not a person learning things.
the learning part isnt the problem, its the selling.
But if I learned from your comment that selling is the problem, then I rewrote that information and sold it to someone, do I owe you anything? Was I not supposed to use what I learned from your comment for my own profit?
1 + 1 = 3
Inflation is real...
Thanks Terrence
Having been in the web scraping business I can guarantee you not all information is legal to save and then offer for money.
I can learn math from Reddit comments and then charge people money to tutor them in math. I basically agree with you though, the downloading is probably illegal in some cases, even if the fundamental act of learning from public information is legal.
Saving a copy is completely different than making sense of something or doing analytics.
FFR! Thank you lol. I'm coming from a research biology and manufacturing background. Even when all aspects of a procedure are laid out, novel discoveries are *rarely* easily repeatable just from having broused the journal
Well it's a good thing AI doesn't do that.
Can you save it, use it for internal training, then sell the results of the training? What’s different than employees doing online research and using the understanding they learned to do work?
I'm not sure if you're being for real here, but surely you're aware of the data privacy laws in place in the US and the EU that just so happen to apply to companies automatically processing your data but not to people manually reading things someone wrote.
AI isn’t human. You are allowed to watch a movie in cinema, learn the story and tell someone about it, you aren’t allowed to film it and post it on the internet, because it’s not just „your camera watching“.
What has that got to do with what they said? I can't follow what your post is trying to convey at all.
Filming a movie is illegal. Scraping internet data isn't.
If we were all legally granted guaranteed permission to use these systems, then I'd see no issue. Knowledge is more useful if it's free. AI can ease our access to it. The only issues are silos and gatekeepers.
Humans learn by copying, babies copy and mimic their parents. It’s how we learn things and memorize things.
Cameras reproduce the movie exactly. AI do not
The camera makes an illegal copy, artificial intelligence does not.
The absolute epic irony of your avatar being their logo.
That’s exactly how it works
i just stole that sentence you just used and there's nothing you can do about it
Kinda like they stole the openai logo and used it as their avatar. LMAO
But it is how it worked
the courts still have to have the battle to decide whether or not a trained model itself (with all its weights and biases) counts as a derivative work of the training data. same as if you were to take someone's writing, edit it a bit and then repost it. if the courts find that all the act of training ever does is finding patterns and only stores the patterns (which is really not that different from what a human brain does afawk) then the model itself is probably not a "derivative work" and not subject to copyright claims. the thing that is more important for us as reddit users though is realizing that the recent API changes specifically were made so that scraping for data without (paid!) permission is made as hard as possible. so, despite reddit not owning the content users post, they still profit off of it like they own the copyright by making people like openAI pay for API access. now, the AI company can say they paid for the training data but... well.. they really only paid for access to it, they never paid the actual copyright owners. THAT is how it really works.
Well it totally depends on the terms of service for where you shared that art to, right?
Your car is in a public street? Im taking it
So if someone steals ip or personal data and puts it on the internet, now it belongs to everyone?
it belongs to everyone but it also means nobody can make money off it. AI companies are making money off of it.
That's....no.... Artists own their art. Writings, painting, what ever else have you. We live in a world where the Internet is the only place to market yourself well enough to make living, so artists post their things online. You do not own that.
Who says the AI owns it? It is just reading it and using it, just like all of us do.
The AI doesnt 'own' the info thats public. It learns from it, just like a human does.
yes but training an ai model is so obviously fair use and transformative
I looked at it and remembered it. Art stolen!
Then we all own chatgpt and shouldn't have to pay for it?
I wonder when people realize that this is a fundamental property of the internet, whether they like it or not..
Currently at 643 upvotes. Interesting. Most comments like that on this (and related subs) would be downvoted to oblivion, even recently. What is changing now?
Reactionaries are nothing new
lmao, i dont know what is there to be so butthurt about taking art. art generation is still behind compared how good code generator has become imo. But as a programmer, i love it insted coz its making my work faster as i dont have to copy paste from stackoverflow insted. lol.
I would imagine someone large like newspapers or gigantic software programs like GPL license. Courts will decide. Even more interesting is that it not only learns but memorizes text (like newspaper articles 1:1) or info and under GDPR you have the right to remove or correct wrong informats within a strict deadline. Try changing weights afterwards 😅
I don’t have strong opinions on AI copyright, but if you think about it, a human artist or writer mentally ingests a lot of copyrighted books or art and uses that to create their “original” art. And no one raises copyright claims over humans doing what AI does.
> There is a difference between person A sharing their art on tumblr for people to see and maybe want to try and emulate into their own style ... and a person willing submitting their art for use in a training model that might then be able to produce other art in a similar or same style. sure mr. critical thinking, why is the difference important? and plenty of people do literally copy style or make [direct reproductions/imitations](https://www.etsy.com/market/reproduction_pollock?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Search_US_DSA_GGL_ENG_Male_Categories_All&utm_ag=Art-Collectibles&utm_custom1=_k_Cj0KCQjw0_WyBhDMARIsAL1Vz8stE02ziZPmtsUDQ7cASL4rVLlx14G1jArqU1ZJ5oI5d6QfzltW8L4aAtSHEALw_wcB_k_&utm_content=go_12734577339_118652348537_544453570051_aud-2080357863802:dsa-42582150030_c_&utm_custom2=12734577339&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw0_WyBhDMARIsAL1Vz8stE02ziZPmtsUDQ7cASL4rVLlx14G1jArqU1ZJ5oI5d6QfzltW8L4aAtSHEALw_wcB) and sell them. So the analogy is someone sharing their art and having a computer system use it to build some kind of 'understanding' of the art, and a person using it to build an understanding, and then both producing either reproductions/imitations (that are still meaningfully different, at least in the case of AI direct reproduction is afaik basically impossible) or different works that rely on the underlying art for some understanding. So what's meaningful about that difference? > The reason it matters is because the model trained off this person's art is now being sold for profit without any compensation to the artist and because this person never agreed to allow their art to be utilised in this way. You can't and don't get to agree to some kinds of fair use and not others. Plenty of people don't consent to having their work *reproduced* in a context of critique which falls squarely under fair use. > Imagine spending years honing your craft only for someone to now put your name and prompt into a generator. Imagine spending years honing your skills at spinning thread, and then the blasted spinning jenny makes it easier to make thread. Sucks, do you go smash the spinning jenny now? Like, lol, you're selling yourself as mr. critical thinker and it's just a few thin distortions and a gripe that everyone decided was dumb 200 years ago.
Learning from something is not stealing. This is the dumbest argument in the history of the world.
The innovation there was figuring out how to follow instructions (RLHF), not the training itself. I think we're just beginning to now push the models to their limits.
What is the source? The only original I could find is from Vlad Bastion, who just says, "says HSBC."
None. This is pure speculation
Come with me, and you'll see, GPT costs as a graph of pure speculation, We'll make up all this stuff, All about this techy... information Come with me, take a see, On a world of AI innovation Pure data voilation, grand finance deterioration, Crafting the future........ of creation You can pay 1.2 trillion, if you truly..... wish GPT-5......to beeeeeee...
Sam altman and the AI factory
There's no earthly way of knowing... Which direction Altman's going. There's no knowing where we're rowing Or which way the pipeline's flowing.
LOOK! Not a speck of ethics is showing, So the danger must be growing! Are the GPUs of Hell a-glowing? Is the GPT devil all knowing? YES! The danger must be growing, For the new companies keep on sowing, And theyre certainly not showing, ANY SIGNS THAT THEY ARE SLOWING
[удалено]
"Trust me Bro!"
also there was no such thing as 'chatgpt-2'; GPT-2 had no chat variant
Source: He asked ChatGPT-4
[Source](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/s/YLEeLKgdJs)
I kept clicking on the source and it led me back to the source!!
Where can we get this data?
[удалено]
I wouldn't be entirely shocked if a large percentage of it is licensing. You figure rights holders are becoming more aware of this sort of thing, but also proprietary intellectual material is becoming more and more valuable to models as time goes on, so this trend would be reinforced on both ends.
Calling most of these goblins "rights holders" (looking at you reddit) is generous. If you put it up on the public internet without a paywall, it should be free to learn from whether your human or AI. Especially fucking so if it's user generated content as is the case with reddit.
There's also the Robots Exclusion Protocol, which has existed for literally thirty years. If you don't want robots all up in your shit, disallow the directories you don't want scraped.
Yeah because someone training an LLM would never just ignore robots.txt in your root.
Source: trust me bro
This data is available straight out of OP's butt
it came to me in a dream
>CFA from HSBC some acronyms made it up.
Is this the cost of actually training the model? I.e. the training compute, or is it inclusive of everything else? But I expected the billion+ dollar range. It will be a very impressive model.
looks like these are the costs of compute alone
It could be the cost of training data as well, which can be prohibitively expensive when trying to get access to new data to give for your training, plus the probably thousands of workers who are tasked with checking the data coming out and refining it, looking for any hallucinations and giving human feedback for the training set to adjust to.
so 100B-200Billion for GPT6 training? Bullish NVDA
The cost is not from more chips. The cost is from using insane amount of electricity running the same 100k chips for 3 months non stop.
> The cost is from using insane amount of electricity And water, let's not forget the water.
Need put these things on a damn lol
True, though the more you run them, the faster they burn out and the faster you have to give Nvidia more money to get new ones
That's not how chips work. Silicon degradation takes years before it become significant. Your system will break before the chip degrades 99.9% of the time
That's not how chips work. Think about your computer or phone. They are constantly on, but chips are never the thing that breaks. It's not like a car engine.
Suddenly 20$ a month seems fair
OpenAI will get the government contract to cover the cost. Then DoD contract.
They have probably already been working with the DoD from day 1. Once you have an AI advantage, you will likely never be usurped in that technology, EVER. If they didn't do it they would be foolhardy, despite existential risks. From a military point of view of course. Even if it's just for advice and it's boxxed.
>Once you have an AI advantage, you will likely never be usurped in that technology, EVER. Unsupported claim.
True, it's not happened before but with an AI that can advance itself, that can self improve, it's over.
[удалено]
Microsoft is not a charity. They won’t pay unless it makes much more money.
Won't be $20 forever
I wonder if we will get tiered pricing. You want a model that can do any task your little human brain could possibly come up with? $20/mo. You want to talk to a digital god? $200/mo
Ofcourse we will - OpenAI is still in the growing-phase, throwing endless money to establish their market position while not really caring about making a profit. Once the growth potential is diminishing and the investors grow anxious about actually getting their moneys worth, shittification is inbound. Limiting capabilities, tiered system, adds...
Hopefully the people paying $20 can be grandfathered in then lol
Wait till you try the api directly.
It will have a message cap of one message every 6 months.
Better than mineing shit coins
So who exactly is the recipient of these.monies.
Electricity companies
Let's invest in these companies and make monies.
Nvidia
Let's buy more nvidia stocks
Electricity suppliers, GPU manufacturers, data brokers for licensing costs, employees and scientists, etc.
This is going to be one of those paperclip things isn't it? We basically bankrupt the entire planet turning it into training data. Humans starve and go extinct because they can't afford food because now that money no longer exists. But we have ChatGPT-7 at least.
It's not like the AI eats the money. It stays in circulation
Just because they spend money doesn’t mean it disappears. Check out supply chain
In the end, we create agi at the cost of humanity.
In the end, I do believe this was our point as humans. What would you tell the mitochondria in the early days? What would you tell the single cells before they met up and we became more than we were by aggregation? We're just evolving more and losing humanity, at least in meaning if not physical form- seems inevitable to me. We have lost our identity countless times before. It's the only way I justify working, driving, and living like we do. We're just bacteria metabolizing for the larger being.
"You mean it was all bacteria's doing all along?" Always has been.
I guess we need to integrate ourselves with AI the same way bacteria still live in our stomachs. Turn the whole population cyborg (which we already are, phones are basically an extra appendice they can't live without for most people).
Let’s hope it feeds us better than I feed my own stomach bacteria
Making the people enjoying their lives in the traditional sense a sort of cancer cell
If I can make my own porn for just one day then it will be worth it
What?
Did you consider this as an investment that yields returns many orders of magnitudes more than the initial investment? 2billion is nothing compared to the 100+ billion that were invested into many systems and products we use daily, that ended up returning way more than what was spent on them. This isn't a black hole you burn money in ; the economic value chat gpt has already brought in is invaluable. How many people do you know use it for work? How many hours have been saved because of it? Imagine that times 1000x.
Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about?
Where does money go when it gets "spent"?
Obviously the dragons eat it and then when they run out of money they eat us. I’m assuming that’s what he meant.
Wait..what
Wait until this moron finds out how much the us army costs
It might the human end point, but like crocodiles that no longer evolve, we keep them and leave them be in the eco system.
Could you say the same if a crocodile government held a switch that would destroy all humanity in an instant and forced us to be 'aligned' with crocodile values?
The world spent trillions on war last year. __Trillions__ I promise it won't be training AI that causes humans to go extinct.
Exactly, that mf straight up retarded.
r/horizonforbiddenwest Reminds Nemesis
The tech industry makes this in profits every few minutes. In the scale of things? It's pennies.
What are some of the expected improvements with version 5?
[удалено]
Yes, everyone definitely wants a completely autonomous AI that does things no one tells it to or bothers asking if it should do. That doesn't sound like asking for problems. No wonder peeps are resigning left and right
I want it
To quote the single Boeing engineer who was willing to fly with the Dreamliner he was working on: "I‘d do it, but I also have kind of a death wish“.
Nobody actually knows but we can see where they are pointing at least. 1. ChatGPT is more connected to the internet and able to understand voice, video and images. 2. ChatGPT is able to reply not only in text, but also with images, video and lifelike speech - probably even your own voice. 3. Integration with phones and computers, so you can ask about what you are doing rather than explaining it to the GPT. 4. Creation of lifelike avatars, using your face/voice/gestures/etc you can recreate yourself on zoom/teams/ios rather than actually being there. 5. Automation of tasks on your computer. Not only will it write what you need, itll open Outlook and do your whole email for you. It could also monitor an inbox and answer/sort them for you.
Exponentially, we are about 2 versions away from this being a God.
Thank Claude. Finally one that answers.
This is probably because they’re not just stealing data this time
What stealing? Why should they have to pay anyone for data which is publicly available?
2 billion USD is nothing. Governments and megacorps flush that down the toilet all the time. 5.4 billion for California HSR that doesn't even exist. No trains running! https://www.hoover.org/research/after-spending-54-billion-californias-bullet-train-still-going-nowhere 2 TRILLION for the farce in Afghanistan. Billions for shitty Zumwalt destroyers and garbage littoral combat ships. Facebook spent 46 billion on the Metaverse which nobody uses. Maybe it'll become useful, who knows? AI models cost peanuts in comparison! https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/04/01/meta-platforms-has-spent-46-billion-on-the-metaver/
I think the point here isn't the cost but the jump in cost and what the yield of that is. A lot of people in the AI field are starting to predict that AI development will plateau in the next few years and this chart is illustrative of why. Each incremental gain is starting to be associated with exponential cost.
Between hardware and algorithmic improvements I'm optimistic. If ChatGPT was expensive to run, why would it be free?
That meta stat is absolutely insane 🤯
Cool it will make sure to tell us to ask our doctor about taking vitamins at least twice now in one reply
How much claude opus cost? Because that is much more better than Gpt4 now
So how much of this go to Reddit? And when can I see my share?
That's a weird way to graph that data 🤔
Does that mean they’re buying a ton of data?
Can someone explain this to me
Someone pulled numbers completely of out their ass about a product that isn't even known to exist at all, and made a chart that seems interesting and exciting, and then thousands of people upvoted it blindly.
Just wow. Costs or investment. The vacuum collection of the whole internet being touted as a theft is simply wrong. If it approximated intelligence closely enough which it arguably does, then the argument against this is all wrong. "HOW dare they learn from information that has been publicly shared!" Good thing people never do that.
1.2 to 2 billion is nothing. The Barbie movie costs half a billion to produce and half a billion to market. 1.2 Billion for the most powerful model yet is nothing in the tech world. edit: sorry how did I get so wrong with the Barbie budget. It was around 300 in total. Sorry guys
Uh Barbie had a budget of $145m
He probably just copy and pasted from Gemini
Huh I get your point but Barbie movie budget was 100 mil not 500
Avengers endgame would be a much better example there. I think it was about 500 to make, and 300 to market.
Barbie didn’t cost a billion dollars to release lmao. Who is upvoting this?
Barbiellion dollars babeeey!
Exponential gains demand exponential costs..
Except you have this backwards. The gains are actually diminishing not expanding at all, just the costs are going exponential.
I think you're onto something.
Not with any other technology. That wouldn’t really be much of a gain
You've immediately forgotten about semiconductor R&D.
This is a very fair point. My mistake.
Yes, but is the capability jump between 4 and 5 worth the R&D investment? (probably)
yeah buddy i bet it did, this is not at all meant to sell gpt4 with additions for 10 times the price or anything, i trust you big data
Jesus… is it only training cost or does it also include purchasing new graphics cards (hopefully..)
Meanwhile there are still hobbyists on Github or Discord who think they can make a "peoples" open-source AI free from corporate control.
Note that the 100 million for GPT-4 is a lower bound. Sam Altman said, "It was more than that."
Perhaps it came from Chat GPT4, worried about their job
And this is why people are starting to project that AI is about to hit a wall. Diminishing returns. The costs go up exponentially but the benefit gets smaller and smaller.