A week ago, analyst TD Cowen revealed that Microsoft had canceled leases "totalling a couple hundred MWs," with "at least two private data center operators across multiple US markets." The report also details how Microsoft "pulled back on converting negotiated and signed Statement[s] of Qualifications (SQQs)," which it added
It’s still not a valid comparison. We’re not talking about diminished returns, we’re talking about an actual ceiling. There are only so many options implemented in games - once they’re maxed out, you can’t go higher.
That’s not the situation we have with AI, it’s supposed to scale indefinitely.
Current games have a limit. Current models have a limit. New games could scale until people don’t see a quality improvement. New models can scale until people don’t see a quality improvement.
I’m supposed to be able to take a model architecture from today, scale it up 100x and get an improvement. I can’t make the settings in Crysis 100x higher than they can go.
Games always have a limit, AI is supposed to get better with scale. Which part do you not understand?
But really the “game” is the model. Throwing more hardware at the same model is like throwing more hardware at the same game.
Which part of diminished returns not offering as much profit did you not understand?
Current models give MS an extra 30% revenue. If they spend billions on a new model will customer pay even more? How much would you pay more for a marginally better AI?
But really the “game” is the model. Throwing more hardware at the same model is like throwing more hardware at the same game.
No, it’s not! AI models are supposed to scale. When you throw more hardware at them, they are supposed to develop new abilities. A game doesn’t get a new level because you’re increasing the resolution.
At this point, you either have a fundamental misunderstanding of AI models, or you’re trolling.
It’s still not a valid comparison. We’re not talking about diminished returns, we’re talking about an actual ceiling. There are only so many options implemented in games - once they’re maxed out, you can’t go higher.
That’s not the situation we have with AI, it’s supposed to scale indefinitely.
Current games have a limit. Current models have a limit. New games could scale until people don’t see a quality improvement. New models can scale until people don’t see a quality improvement.
I’m supposed to be able to take a model architecture from today, scale it up 100x and get an improvement. I can’t make the settings in Crysis 100x higher than they can go.
Games always have a limit, AI is supposed to get better with scale. Which part do you not understand?
You can make Crysis run at higher fps. You can add polygons. (remember ati clown feet?) You can add details to textures. https://research.nvidia.com/publication/2016-06_infinite-resolution-textures
But really the “game” is the model. Throwing more hardware at the same model is like throwing more hardware at the same game.
Which part of diminished returns not offering as much profit did you not understand?
Current models give MS an extra 30% revenue. If they spend billions on a new model will customer pay even more? How much would you pay more for a marginally better AI?
No, it’s not! AI models are supposed to scale. When you throw more hardware at them, they are supposed to develop new abilities. A game doesn’t get a new level because you’re increasing the resolution.
At this point, you either have a fundamental misunderstanding of AI models, or you’re trolling.