> frontier research is halted but efficiency isn't

Why are you treating those as if they're separate things?

> Advancing the frontier seems to take a massive amount of compute, data, and parameters: miniaturization only happens afterwards.

This is just completely wrong. Don't mistake the path by which something happened (or appeared to an outsider to have happened) for a fundamental truth.

The frontier labs build massive models because if you're competing and you have a lot of cash and brute force is a viable option then it's easy and predictable. But the fundamental research itself doesn't in general require scale (certainly not entire datacenters) and models at any given capability level keep shrinking.

I keep repeating myself at this point but the human brain is on the order of 20 watts. That's a fraction of a single datacenter GPU! So again, would you have us destroy all chip fabs and ban all biomedical research?

▲

metalcrow 16 hours ago | parent [-]

> Why are you treating those as if they're separate things?

Because they are? You haven't explained at all your belief that they are the same.

> This is just completely wrong. Don't mistake the path by which something happened (or appeared to an outsider to have happened) for a fundamental truth.

So it's completely wrong but it's only what has happened so far? You're repeating yourself but you're not listening to my responding to your exact points. I literally responded to your claim that "would you have us destroy all chip fabs and ban all biomedical research?" In the last post.

	▲	fc417fc802 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		To both points, you appear to broadly lack technical understanding of the field. You are assuming that how things appear to you reflects how they are at a lower level. A chronological review of the architectures of the best open models over the past 3 years should immediately make the problem clear to you. (If you really refuse to put in any effort then perhaps just dump this thread into a frontier model rather than responding.) > I literally responded to your claim that "would you have us destroy all chip fabs and ban all biomedical research?" I don't see it? It's a rhetorical question to drive home the point about the human brain. Chip fabs and biomedical research are both viable pathways to more efficient hardware. Thanks to biology we know what's possible. If you outlaw something but don't effectively cut off all the pathways to it then someone will still do it if it's profitable.