They will be revolutionary and join the list once the technology stands the test of time.
There you go. A simple test that cannot be rushed by more datacenters.
They will be revolutionary and join the list once the technology stands the test of time.
There you go. A simple test that cannot be rushed by more datacenters.
The only pattern I can see is it being potentially unsustainable, but I find it hard to believe that, considering I can run an LLM that is more capable that SOTA from 2 years ago on a single box in my living room.
The same thing that makes me think that it could: I do not have a crystal ball.
It's a simple test. Have patience. With your tone, even if you are right and it stands the test of time, you will look like a tool.
That is the goal of a hype trend. To make even healthy skeptics feel like they are missing a great thing.
I am actually an early adopter though. I just don't like bragging around.
Researchers know that most "goal posts moved" are actually great challenges. It would be sad if they saw it as pessimism.
Think of it as a more creative way to engage in the hype.
Skeptics are more valuable than blind believers. You want a blind believer testing your airbag or a skeptic that will move some goal posts to try and sniff out any bugs?
So you're saying we need more datacenters ~ Jensen Huang, probably
One could argue that it is the fourth item on that list, since it is a technology that is standing for a long time by now.
Anywho, that quality of life jump to DSL ultimately led to the enshitification of the internet I knew and loved and now I'm stuck talking about LLMs I wish didn't exist - I would trade the conveniences of today for the internet of the 2000s any day. I genuinely view us on a downwards QOL trajectory re: technology, even if it feels more novel and useful in the moment. Every new novelty in tech that makes life easier for us seems to actually further degraded the human experience of the internet. I don't know how to reconcile this trend with LLMs as being "great".
It really feels like the more we do "good" to "progress" information technology breakthroughs, the worse the entire field feels. Much shallower, less personal, and dumber.
Sorry for the rant.
A "gaming PC" defines how GPUs are important. General people know something there ticks different, specialists know, industries know. It matters. It matters for a long time now.
"Broadband" was a hype, temporary. Once people understood that the speed is the thing, not any name, it stopped mattering. Now every couple of years there's a mini "new broadband tech" but it's all the same. Of course the tech is important. But revolutionary? I don't know. It boils down to being what is defined as generally "the internet".
If we sent people back to dial up, the world would probably stop working.
If we took away LLMs, GPUs, the base world will probably keep chugging along outside of financial markets. Just IMO.
Hey, COBOL stood the test of time. In software, it was revolutionary.
The worlds dependency on LLM tools just hasnt had time to develop and that doesnt mean it wont. most people here are likely on the bleeding edge of utilizing them. most people not paying attention will just use it like they use google or not at all, until tools are built and they dont even realize they are using an LLM, or using a service that is dependent on an LLM.
If you don't train LLMs, you are just an user. I am sorry, that is the reality and it is cruel (for now).
If "prompt engineering" becomes a thing, it means the tech is less impressive than it declares itself to be.
It should be a natural language based interface. I will trust it and learn natural language instead, worst thing that can happen is I learn to communicate better (actually a good thing).
Take it away, leave it. Does it really matter in the context I presented?
to use the same past example as simply as possible, computers utilize electricity. in this case LLMs would be the electricity. (this isnt me saying LLMs are as revolutionary as electricity, just trying to make a very clear example)