|
|
|
|
|
|
by rented_mule
7 days ago
|
|
|
In terms of what we decide to build, impossible vs. impractical is not a particularly interesting distinction (that distinction can give rise to fun science fiction). Practicality is at the core of good engineering, and possibility is just the first of many steps in evaluating practicality. If we're going with a distributed approach, there are other ideas that are more practical. For example, send 1 KW boxes to a million people (< 1% of American homes, but there's no reason to limit this to the US). Very roughly, these are beefed-up gaming consoles - you could even start with existing gaming consoles. That box plugs into electricity and ethernet. Pay each of those people $1,000 a month to leave their box running 24/7. For people with a lot of solar at home, it could be a nice income stream. At $1B per year for payouts, it's far cheaper than doing it in orbit. And it doesn't rely on promised but as-yet undelivered technologies. But data centers are probably more practical. |
|
|
1. Running modern models requires a whole rack of extremely loud equipment that can easily consume 130kw. That's not a load you can or should run at home.
2. It would require a very strong end-to-end implementation of confidential computing to keep the prompts encrypted. If there is any flaw in that infrastructure at all, like someone discovers a way to physically tamper with the hardware to read the GPU memory, then the entire network is a writeoff and would have to be replaced. That's a massive risk. Confidential computing can work in cases where hardware replacements aren't an issue or where the vendor has a long history of successfully defending the platform. But Nvidia is the only GPU vendor with these capabilities and their CC is untrusted.
Putting the workloads in space means noise and data privacy aren't an issue, assuming you trust SpaceX to not peek at your prompts on their way to the cluster.