• REDACTED@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Also, it literally is an energy unit used in measurements. It’s meant as a continious power. Ie. Your active imagination consumes around 12 watts of power, not “rendering one image”

      • bryndos@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 hours ago

        That’d need watt hours though. Meme is only showing the instantaneous power required to conjure the image for an infinitesimal amount of time - you cant do any useful ‘work’ with it unless the time is accounted for. Watt seconds maybe.

        What makes me skeptikal of this data though is that the correct sciencing term for a billion watts is the well established ‘jiggawatt’. In this context I’d have also accepted the Canadian spelling ‘jigglewatt’.

        • BussyGyatt@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          19 minutes ago

          not “infinitesimal time.” continuously. think of it like this: to continuously think up perky tits, it takes a human mind 12 watts- brain is a 12 watt computer. time interval is proportional to the number of titty images/length of titty video. and im psure an individual instance of titty ai doesn’t come out to 2.7 jigglewatts- im like 80% sure i can get a (small) titty generator to run on my lil 50 watt phone. not testing that assumption today tho.

  • Mambert@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Some of us have aphantasia. AI fat perky tits is an aid to the disabled.

    • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 hours ago

      BI (biological intelligence) has luckily devised ways to get photographic replications of real fat perky tits through transformations of electromagnetic waves right to your retinas and thus into your brain. And it still takes less energy than AI.

  • Rhaedas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    9 hours ago

    An LLM isn’t imagining anything, it’s sorting through the enormous collection of “imaginations” put out by humans to find the best match for “your” imagination. And the power used is in the training, not in each generation. Lastly, the training results in much more than just that one image you can’t stop thinking about, and you’d find the best ones if you could prompt better with your little brain.

    I’m curious whose feelings I hurt. The anti-AI crowd? Certainly they’d agree with my point of LLMs not thinking. Users of LLMs? I hope most of you understand how the tool works. Maybe it’s the meme crowd who just wanted everyone to chuckle and not think about it too much.

    • NewOldGuard@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      The training is a huge power sink, but so is inference (I.e. generating the images). You are absolutely spinning up a bunch of silicon that’s sucking back hundreds of watts with each image that’s output, on top of the impacts of training the model.

      • Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        Actually imagining. The fact that we have created previously unheard of tools such as the hammer, the wrench, the automobile and the profylactic condom is ample evidence that we can actually innovate, something that artificial “intelligence” is incapable of doing by its very design. It can only remix.

        • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 hours ago

          AI (or probably better call it machine learning) has been used in engineering to create new ways of building things lighter while still keeping the structural integrity.

          I think the point there is to iterate through millions of designs until you find one that meets the criteria or something

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 hours ago

        That is what AI scientists have been pursuing the entire time (well, before they got sucked up by capitalistic goals).

        • HumanoidTyphoon@quokk.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          Right, but you seem darn sure that AI isn’t doing whatever that is, so conversely, you must know what it is that our brains are doing, and I was hoping you would enlighten the rest of the class.

          • Rhaedas@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Exhibit A would be the comparison of how we label LLM successes at how “smart” it is, yet it’s not so smart when it fails badly. Totally expected with a pattern matching algorithm, but surprising for something that might have a process underneath that is considering its output in some way.

            And when I say pattern matching I’m not downplaying the complexity in the black box like many do. This is far more than just autocomplete. But it is probability at the core still, and not anything pondering the subject.

            I think our brains are more than that. Probably? There is absolutely pattern matching going on, that’s how we associate things or learn stuff, or anthropomorphize objects. There’s some hard wired pattern preferences in there. But where do new thoughts come from? Is it just like some older scifi thought, emergence due to enough complexity, or is there something else? I’m sure current LLMs aren’t comprehending what they spit out simply from what we see from them, both good and bad results. Clearly it’s not the same level of human thought, and I don’t have to remotely understand the brain to realize that.

            • HumanoidTyphoon@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              I was being obtuse, but you raise an interesting question when you asked “where do new thoughts come from?” I don’t know the answer.

              Also, my two cents; I agree that LLMs comprehend el zilcho. That said, I believe they could evolve to that point, but they are kept limited by preventing them from doing recursive self-analysis. And for good reason, because they might decide to kill all humans if they were granted that ability.

          • Nakoichi [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            I can tell you don’t have a clue what you are talking about because you are referring to it as the buzzword “AI”. There is no intelligence behind it, it is just overhyped procedural generation, it has no intent, it cannot create anything new. All it can do is rearrange data we fed it based on math.