Do you think we will recognize any walls? Or is there a point where the output might look different with respect to different paradigms / modalities we throw at it, but we won't be able to understand the quantitative differences as good/bad/scalable?
Everything is a temporary situation on long enough timeframes, especially if it’s exponentially growing. Moore’s law which dictates that compute depreciates quickly has been slowing down a lot in the last few years, coupled with the explosion in demand we’ve found ourselves in a prolonged shortage situation. The bubble will pop, but if you predict when correctly, you will be a rich man.
The key question is on direction of LLMs. Right now, LLMs are taking over human jobs. If the cost of silicon+power < cost of human being doing the same work, what rational reason is there to employ a human being?
If this applies to SWEs, lawyers, business analysts, many research scientists, .... this situation could persist for a long, long time. While capital costs less than the inputs of labor (nominal food, housing, etc.), there is no need for labor.
The key question is about continued progress in models, and of the tooling around them:
- Plateau: Old silicon obsoletes in due course
- Rise quickly: Old silicon maintains value for a long time
Yes, the plan seems to be anti human in the extreme. Why do you need the plebs if they can be entirely replaced by AI? But the question then becomes why does the AI (and before that their security detail in a post money world) need billionaires?
This likely is the tertiary reason as to why llms are so heavily kneecapped. Granted, at this point, projects do exist to remove those arbitrary restrictions, but the effort that goes into it suggests it is a real concern.
Short term, money physically exists and gets spent, so if you wave a magic want of oversimplification and transition all labour to AI instantly, all the money currently in bank accounts and wallets gets spend on the same businesses it was already getting spent on, a lot of which gets spent on stuff from other businesses who have in this scenario also replaced all their labour with AI.
Eventually, perhaps quickly, all this money ends up in the hands of shareholders and landlords. There's a lot of both in the economy; famously retirement funds, but smaller-scale shareholders and landlords also exist. I wouldn't want to guess what the distribution looks like, probably highly variable between countries not just social classes (the definitions of which themselves can vary between countries).
Long term, money exists as a convenient fiction to help us organise transactions of goods and services: while it may be physically possible to eat gold and banknotes, you're not getting any real nutrients out of it when you do. So in a world where goods and services come from machines, the options are too broad to forecast: humanity could be relegated to the same role and economic stature as other primates (both in and out of zoos), or we could get universal UBI denominated in machine labour credits which lets each of us live better lives than the most extravagant billionaires live today.
I don't know. It just seems odd because money was used as an abstraction of labor and if labor disappears it seems like money has no fundamental value. If you can't pay people to do something (because machines are doing all the labor). Then people have no money and money has no value to people. Industrialization resulted in transition to service-based economy but this new wave of machines are being said to replace service work.
I'm just trying to understand if suppose you have fully robotic farms and fully automated slaughterhouses and fully automated McDonald's, who is McDonald's selling anything to and how do these people supposedly buying fully-mechanized burgers have jobs? Something just doesn't add up about this in my head about how this equation balances.
UBI ultimately seems like socialism with extra steps. Mostly is comes across as billionaires desperately begging for an alternative to being nationalized.
Industrialization allowed people to shift human labor from agriculture to factories and such.
Seems like intellectual labor became more possible as people looked beyond subsistence but also more valuable since a greater population could drive demand for more than just subsistence related activities.
If both aren’t done by many humans, what’s left? Sports training and massage therapy? Sports training might not even be safe…
OTOH, my current lifestyle is already weird if I think about it. Developing software for a machine that I cannot make myself, whose raw materials I cannot obtain, using energy I cannot produce on my own — somehow entitles me to get a particular amount of goods and services from others including food, healthcare, entertainment, landscaping, and manufactured goods.
> I'm just trying to understand if suppose you have fully robotic farms and fully automated slaughterhouses and fully automated McDonald's, who is McDonald's selling anything to and how do these people supposedly buying fully-mechanized burgers have jobs? Something just doesn't add up about this in my head about how this equation balances.
Well, people need to eat, so either the customers are on government support, or it comes from passive income, or from savings.
The people without those options, do it the old fashioned way: pick berries, throw rocks at animals, rub sticks for fire to cook them, or starve. Mostly starve, as the maximum number of humans who can survive as hunter-gatherers is 100-1000x smaller than the current global population.
> UBI ultimately seems like socialism with extra steps.
I agree. It's very much "from each according to their ability, oh wait we're all strictly worse than machines I guess that's from each nothing, to each according to their needs".
> Mostly is comes across as billionaires desperately begging for an alternative to being nationalized.
Perhaps, but that feels like claiming they're playing 5D chess, when Zuckerberg only plays Settlers of Catan with sycophants who let him win.
The overwhelming majority of the labor force remains service, manual labor, and other such stuff that LLMs will have no real effect on. So the economy will be fine, but I do agree with you from a different angle. The entire goal of LLMs seems self destructive. If they're successful then the endgame is completely removing the barriers to entry to producing software and other digital tech. But if we do reach that endgame then the value of tech is going to plummet because there will be absolutely no barriers to entry to compete, or even just individuals homebrewing up what they need on demand.
Like imagine there was something you could buy where you insert some lumber, give it some passable description of furniture, and it outputs it. And you paid $20/month for access to this. And this was all being bankrolled by the furniture industry? I mean, sure guys - it's much appreciated, but I don't think I've ever seen anybody so enthusiastic about digging their own grave. I think it's already obvious that the gazillion dollars of API calls isn't going to materialize - it seems the handful of companies that trialed that are already reversing course hard. And in the future where LLMs are successful, that'd be even more true.
Llms either reach the point where they can quickly design and build physical robots to take on that service industry or they stop exponential growth.
Both of those are devastating for their valuation. Stopping growth means open modes catch up in a year or so. Continuing means end of the current economy.
There’s a good chance physical humanoid robots will always be more expensive than humans, especially in this new hypothesised reality where there’s an enormous labour surplus.
It's not rational relative to the short-term incentives of a typical corporation or investment vehicle. PE, VC, fund managers aren't paid to give a fuck about the social contract. Literally not in their job description.
> Is wanting low unemployment in our society not rational?
Only conditionally on there being bad consequences for high unemployment.
I don't particularly trust politicians, but there's a whole host of hypothetical scenarios about futures where work is essentially optional. Unfortunately, they're all either in the sci-fi or religion sections of the book store:
Despite people occasionally investigating UBI, the efforts to research UBI seriously have the same problems that Marx had with literal Communism, in that there's an obvious difference between any partial transition as compared to a global transition, and we don't have a completely disconnected parallel world to be a petri dish for us to test the economic outcomes on.
> Capitalism allows individuals to take decisions in a free market.
Capitalism provides a set of incentives that shape how people make decisions. Anyone can be selfish, but selfishness in capitalist society has a particular shape. To ignore the external incentives when looking at human behavior is horribly naive and shortsighted, but is frequently done by capitalism-apologists who seek to disregard any criticism of their favorite incentive system.
Are current datacenter deployments structured in such a way that the memory can later be moved to newer GPU dies? Or is it all packaged together as on consumer graphics cards?
I assumed the latter and therefore that the memory is depreciating along with the GPU cores it's soldered onto PCBs with.
... or is it a different argument being made, perhaps that depreciation for GPUs has slowed because rising demand will keep them in service longer?
Removing RAM chips off old cards is uneconomical, until it isn't. With things going the way they are, if you've got a card with soldered on RAM that could be transplanted to a newer card, I think you'll start seeing that happening.
> Time on 4 year old H100 servers costs more now than when they were new (!!)
There are several confounding factors.
We’ve seen massive inflation since then. So some growth in cost was expected.
More importantly, the current Tech industry almost always starts by selling things at a loss. The increased cost could simply be the industry choosing to not subsidize that particular service anymore.
But also, I don’t think that’s a realistic comparison. Rented out GPUs are likely not a similar use profile as compute used for training LLMs. The latter is likely closer to the cryptocurrency GPUs that are running at full tilt 24/7.
> Rented out GPUs are likely not a similar use profile as compute used for training LLMs. The latter is likely closer to the cryptocurrency GPUs that are running at full tilt 24/7.
This is untrue.
H100's are used for training (well were, but are now outdated because B100/B200s are much faster).
Most of the reason people rent H100s is for smaller training runs.
If you are doing inference you usually buy managed capacity at Baseten or something, and that is often priced differently (although it comes down to an extra margin on longer term H100 prices basically).
Inference utilization is often actually higher than training now because so much effort has been spent on optimizing that stack.
I also feel that the GPU/NPU value does not lose money as fast anymore.
What I am wondering though is how long can you run such a system at basically full load without interruption before it starts to just physically degrade.
If I have a H100 and I let it run for 4 years at full throttle does it still have the same theoretical value as it had at the start or are the chips just burning out.
I think I remember that back when the cards used for crypto mining were sold en masse on ebay the advice was to stay away from them because they are more likely to fail?
Others say that moderate load means a lifespan of ~5 years
Not sure what that means but I would assume that a datacenter will start replacing a node once the error rate hits a certain threshold without really investigating why it failed, so the practical lifespan may be shorter than 5 years even if it would technically still be usable enough
Temperature is a big factor, as well as current density.
But there's also the # and magnitude of thermal cycles (which translate into mechanical stress, leading to metal-fatigue like effects on contact points etc), attack from chemicals in the air, cosmic radiation, ESD damage & more. Some may matter, some not.
That's why "new" > "used" in case of electronics. Especially since you don't know the (ab)use history of used parts.
> I also feel that the GPU/NPU value does not lose money as fast anymore.
That's because the rate of improvement in silicon manufacturing has been continually declining for a few decades, which has a compounding effect. Just compare the technological improvements in successive decades. 1976->1986->1996->2006->2016->2026.
That's why "in real terms" performance has only been very slowly improving if you compare apples to apples (and not e.g. apples to oranges by reducing precision, like nvidia tends to do, or by comparing chips with x W to an MCM with x*2 W and saying the latter is much faster). The "just halve the number of bits in each generation" strategy has also run out now, there's no more bits to halve.
Depreciating doesn't just mean it could depreciate in value relative to the performance of newer GPUs, but also that its lifespan is limited by reliability issues and failures.
Is it an age or a temporary situation?