Thread

1. dghlsakjg · 1785816328 · focus · HN ↗

   I know everyone wants to crap all over these setups that are impractical, but this is how progress happens.

   People will keep plugging away at this and figure out how to avoid wearing the hard drive, how to make it run faster, custom hardware buses etc.

   Keep going! I personally can't wait for the day when a 1t param model runs off a $200 SSD instead of a $50k rack of Nvidia chips.

   1. arjie · 1785817257 · focus · HN ↗

      Haha 1T on $50k might be a bit hopeful, mate, even at FP8. But I too am hopeful.

      1. apimade · 1785820168 · focus · HN ↗

         8800 GTX in 2006. Cutting-edge, an insanely powered consumer card for the time. Theoretically around 0.3456 TFLOPS.

         1080 GTX in 2016. Cutting-edge, an insanely powerful consumer card for the time. Theoretically around 8.87 to 8.9 TFLOPS.

         5090 RTX in 2026. Cutting-edge, an insanely powerful consumer card for today. Theoretically around 104.8 TFLOPS.

         In the same timeframe mobile processor CPU's went from 0.001 TFLOPS, to today's Apple's A19 Pro chip which delivers 2.074 TFLOPS.

         That's _without_ getting into ASIC's, or purpose-built hardware like Taalas's model on silicon HC1, or generic AI dies like what they're planning with HC2 or Cerebras, which will massively compress the timeline.

         1. Azantys · 1785839857 · focus · HN ↗

            Here you have shown yourself that progress slows down and doesnt speed up. 8.9/0.35 = ~25x more performance in 10 years from 2006 to 2016. 104.8/8.9 = ~12x more performance in 10 years from 2016 to 2026. Growth has dropped 50%.

            1. dghlsakjg · 1785850261 · focus · HN ↗

               That isn't deceleration, you've just chosen a very selective way to compare. If you use time as a denominator, which is kind of intrinsic when talking about rates of acceleration, you get a very different result. If you graphed .3, 8.9, and 104.4 on the y axis, with years on the x axis, it would be pretty clear that there was in increase in the rate of progress.

               We went from adding 8 teraflops in a decade, to adding almost 100 the next decade. If we add "only" 400 more teraflops in the next decade the graph will make that initial growth look flat in comparison, even though your math would show that we are basically stalled out.

               It’s like claiming that a company that goes from making $1 to $1k to $100k to $1mm in a 4 year period has decelerating growth.

               1. ksec · 1785864224 · focus · HN ↗

                  >It’s like claiming that a company that goes from making $1 to $1k to $100k to $1mm in a 4 year period has decelerating growth.

                  Because it is decelerating growth. There is a reason why we use YoY percentage in annual and financial reporting.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.