train a human
This guy has the same level of empathy as Zuck.
train a human
This guy has the same level of empathy as Zuck.
Someone on Bluesky pointed out that, even if you ignore the morality of this argument, AI is trained on human content, so if we're going to start examining the human energy cost, we'll have to factor in the cost of every single human whose work was used by ChatGPT on top of the data center costs.
Y'know what uses the most resources, Sammy?
BILLIONAIRES!
...we should eat them.
I'd prefer composting and growing veggies.
Idk maybe we should do something about this man.
I’ll get this one if you take Thiel
Silicon valley was a huge source of revenue for America... And when you have one industry, or a bunch of individuals making all the money - it risks authoritarianism capture of democracy.
Train him?
I wonder why nobody has Mangione'd those filthy millionaires yet.
I have no idea why people keep using an innocent man's name to talk about murdering people.
I really wish Sam Altman would treat himself with the dignity and efficiency he wants to treat us with.
The ideology of evil eugenicists didn't die with Hitler, and they didn't die with Epstein either.
He will probably claim to work a gazillion hours a week with an unrivaled efficiency, making him one of the most productive humans on Earth. Because these people are not just sociopaths, they're also completely delusional about their intelligence and true worth, out of money worth.
Oh good, the Bitcoin argument.
"Sure, Bitcoin wastes a lot of energy, but you know what else wastes energy? The Visa payment network."
Yeah, but Visa handles six quadrispillion transactions per megawatthour, Bitcoin handles two drug purchases. Not the same results, is it?
So yeah, training humans takes a lot of energy. But in the end, you get a coherent, capable and well functioning individual. Spend the same energy on training LLMs and you get a system that'll happily tell you to glue the cheese on pizza or something.
Not trying to defend the idiotic argument, but feels like more often than not the human output is not what I would call coherent, capable and well functioning.
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.
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.
Yeah because nobody drugs with any other method than bitcoin. Clutch those pearls harder while you wash down your leagal and totally not drugs pharmaceutical pills and alcohol.
Mistaking the map for the territory. The argument isn't that bitcoin is bad because it's used to buy drugs, it's bad because the network would choke if it even had to handle the economic activity of a moderately sized town.
Ha! I have never had a disease nor one sip of the alghoul's poison.
The humans still exist and need food, even if they are replaced by chatbots in the workforce. The comparison is therefore useless, unless you plan to murder the unemployed.
but PER QUESTION how many kilowatt hours are they using. not just in their heads, in their hearts and in their booties.
I don't but the police work for me since I am a billionaire and they can murder the unemployed for me!
To save the working man, you've got to put him out to pasture
Soup us Good Food - Dead Kennedys
These people fundamentally do not think about human life in a normal way.
I can outperform ai while being powered by a bag of cinema popcorn, sit your bitch arse down
Hey don't get angry at me, it is them immigrants fault I had to dehumanize you
Those lazy immigrants, sitting at home doing nothing, taking all our welfare and jobs.
Tech bros deal in false equivalencies. In general they rely on the playbook of logical fallacies. The one they rely on most is the presumption that the technology they're trying to sell is correct by default as if it's a fundamental law of the universe. And that the onus is on others to prove them wrong. Rather than them having to prove its correctness.
They often resort to ad hominem by implying their detractors lack intelligence or they're emotional. This again draws on more logical fallacy that because they deal in technology it means they presume to own the position of being purely objective and correct by default. So anyone who says otherwise is disputing science itself.
In other words they never have to prove the veracity of the technology they're trying to sell because they divert the discourse off topic to frivolous arguments about something else.
And humans also built the fucking power plants and pay for the energy they use, asshole.
Isn’t the key thing here the idea that economics, machinery etc are there to serve or support humans? It seems that the rich and the Techbros are of the opposite opinion.
Where did you get that idea ? Everything is here to generate profits for investors, nothing else
I mean that's the cynical view largely based on how conditions in mainly one particular country have developed sure, but it's not philosophically what economics is about (which is allocating resources in a utility maximising way)
I read this the other day and it changed my view on economics or at least economics as we know it today.
https://www.penguin.com.au/books/the-invisible-doctrine-9781802062694
I suppose it has been that way ever since farmers created a surplus that businessmen and politicians could steal.
You think he would oppose a massive genocide of 99.9% of humanity if he could get an army of robots to sérve him in his new world?
Think again!
Aren't humans and biological creatures in general found to be extremely efficient with energy? Given the computing power in our brains the fact it runs on so little is amazing no?
Doesn't the human brain do what it does on like the same electricity as a lightbulb?
Yes, it's disingenuous for him to bring up all the time used for humans to evolve as well. If we're going to go that far, we also ought to include the energy/time used by the engineers who created ChatGPT, and all the energy used by plants/animals in the evolution leading to those engineers. Not to mention all the time/energy/training of all the people who created the training data over the past few centuries.
Frankly, at that point, any human artist is more "efficient" than AI - they're able to master their field in mere decades.
I really don't think he meant it that way. Think of it like this - if I want to generate some images, my GPU will run at 100% for few minutes. If I want to play cyberpunk, my GPU will run at 100% for hours.

There's an easy answer to this problem.
Except the energy AI is using should also calculate the amount of time and energy used to create all the plagiarized works in its memory banks to make a better comparison.
Don't forget the energy needed to produce the humans who:
Hint: It's the same cumulative energy that his own stupid argument is hinged on.
Sam Altman is right. In fact, when you think about it, humans also give off lots of excess energy in the form of body heat, and it is only logical that this energy would be harvested to make AI run more efficiently. AI gives humans so much, it's only fair if they give something back.
/s
If we ate just one techbro the other ones would fall in line pretty quickly
If you eat one techbro, you consume about 300,000 kcal, which is significantly more energy than it takes to ask chatGPT one question. So who is more energy efficient, AI-atheists? /s
We should just eat them all. They stopped contributing anything of value years ago.
A good ol' public hanging.
This man is completely bonkers! Arguing it's OK to feed the machine with limited resources over a human!
Damned those American oligarchs are batshit crazy sociopaths.
Unsurprising the man who needed AI to tell him how to care for his child sees less value in "training" humans vs training and running AI.
Altman, Thiel, Musk, et al, need to be headed to the gallows.
The problem isn't so much their reckless careless behavior, but that they can get so many people to go along and invest.
Started from "for good of humanity" and now we're at "humans use a lot of energy". Man why does everything have to suck like that.
I had to rub my temples for like a minute or two after reading this. Fuck. This is a dumb time line.
MBAs became too powerful in organizations making decisions about technology they don't understand in conjunction with shareholders/investors pumping money into hype because they don't understand how deliverables in tech works. When will OpenAI actually deliver ?
It's the end of an era, the last hurrah where things are taken to the extreme.
by this logic AI has also used the knowledge of 100 billion people and has the same starting energy debt as a person. with the added bonus that it can't actually create anything new. Even their dumbass arguments can't stand under their own weight
According to the article, this was his literal next sentence:
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.
Where's Alannis Morissette when you need her?
wouldn't let that nerd fix a paper jam. visionary hallucinations. by that logic we should all die so ai might live cheaper. amen
top 99 comments