Biden went around congress to fund a different genocide. Pretty words, but living up to them is another matter.

Me: A program you wrote suddenly started exhibiting bad behavior. Comment?

You: Hummina, Hummina, Hummina.....let me investigate first.

Me: You are obviously complicit in some nefarious endeavor, and you are obviously guilty.

that's jiggawatts, much different!

"We aren't the same as you."

LOL, share you aren't. But at least you draw a paycheck from Putin.

"But yes it took me a month to accept that MW or GW is ok to use to denote data center capacity. Now every other number from investment in compute or number of people or amount of water is also thumbruled to per MW of IDC capacity."

It took you a month to realize that the metrics billionaires use exist to quantify how rapidly they can gain wealth, not how much technical capacity exists (which they don't even care about)? This is right in the metric itself, you should understand that immediately.

"Just scaling everything pro-rata from from some GW/MW thumbrules is how we have reached this bubble stage TBH. It's like every real estate developer denoting how much MSF Million square feet they have under development regardless of whether it's in NYC or Timbuktu. And people investing based on that."

Yes, and it's even worse than that. Billionaires think that every AI problem gets solved merely through scale, that's why they only care about what limits scale. That's where the GW metric comes from, and they fact that they use is tells us just how incompetent they are.

"1) While the FLOPs per megawatt ratio is going to change over time, the limiting factor right now isn't compute per se, it's the ability to get power the computers. "

Citation please. Obviously, billionaires want free power and are making a point of this, but so what? Furthermore, while watts is a measure of power, it is NOT a measure of inference.

"But the fact that memory bandwidth is a problem doesn't make FLOPS any less obsolete."
FLOPS are not obsolete, nor have FLOPS ever been the sole measure of computing capability. It is one measure, and it's a chosen measure here by people like you for the sole reason of arguing against it. The topic is megawatts, the dumbest possible way of expressing inferencing capability.

"What matters for AI inference is being able to do 50 TFLOPS across tens of gigs of RAM (or hundreds?)."
Which is why FLOPs are not absolute, despite your ignorant claim.

"But we don't have a good unit-of-measure for that. But we do have a perfectly good unit-of-measure of today's limiting factor: gigawatts."
Sure we do, even if you don't, and gigawatts is NOT a measure of today's limiting power, just like horsepower is not a measure of the amount of freeways we have.

"Because it's the primary bottleneck for datacenter capacity."

Citation please. Power is A bottleneck, it's not the PRIMARY bottleneck.

"GPUs are cheap."
They are not.

"Hauling mobile megawatt generators to datacenters because utilities can't provide the power is not."
And this is a false choice. There are more constraints that these two.

"It isn't. But it's more useful than FLOPS."
No it's not, and no matter how many times you repeat it it remains about the most idiotic thing you could say.

"You are so fucking illiterate, lol"
Look who's talking!

"What measurement would you prefer, since FLOPS is literally irrelevant to them?"

Ignoring that FLOPS are extremely relevant, despite your moronic claims to the contrary, we certainly don't want WATTS which are completely meaningless.

Let's not forget that as stupid as your comments are regarding FLOPs, you make them in defense of something even more stupid.

A FLOP has just as much meaning as a watt, yet is far more relevant to computation. You can say what you want, but all you're telling us is how stupid you are.

"AI inference has zero dependence on FLOPS. None."

Completely false, and yet you want to claim one is meaningless while the other isn't? How do watts related to inferences?

"FLOPs are a better metric than Watts, though."

Because they are, but where is a single example of where I've used that metric with respect to inferences?

Do you even speak English, you idiot?

The problem is that the LLM only does one trick. When you start integrating other software with it, the other software's input has to be fed in the same way as your other tokens. As the last paragraph of TFS says, "every clock check consumes space in the model's context window" and that's because it's just more data being fed in. But the model doesn't actually ever know what time it is, even for a second; the current time is just mixed into the stew and cooked with everything else. It doesn't have a concept of the current time because it doesn't have a concept of anything.

You could have a traditional system interpreting the time, and checking the LLM's output to determine whether what it said made sense. But now that system has to be complicated enough to determine that, and since the LLM is capable of so much complexity of output it can never really be reliable either. You can check the LLM with another LLM, and that's better than not checking its output at all, but the output checking is subject to the same kinds of failures as the initial processing.

So yeah, we can do that, but it won't eliminate the [class of] problem.

Every tech company needs at least three things to start with: The business guy, the brain, and the lawyer. Ideally there should also be a marketing guy, but you can add them in later. Also, none of them have to be male, I just like saying "guy", buddy.

Yes and no, depending. If you are building an application in Excel, yes, all you said is true. If you are using one, no, none of it is. Spreadsheets can be set up such that the user just stuffs data into them where they are supposed to, then clicks a button to get results. Or maybe they don't even have to hit a button.

For the simplest useful example I can think of, I put together a spreadsheet which produces a table we use for asset valuation. This spreadsheet changes every year. If you load my spreadsheet, it will be correct for the current year. No user has to think about that at all, they just load it and get a correct table. You can extrapolate this to basically any level of complexity because Excel has VBA and you can script everything. The user just follows instructions, and they aren't even allowed to edit any cells which could break anything.

In case anyone is going this far down the hole, it turned out great. Even though the item was shipped from the US, because the seller didn't respond I got a refund without having to return it.

So far Aliexpress has been responsive to 100% of my issues and I only have needed to be a little patient and not expect everything to be solved immediately or arrive immediately.

I agree that a database-backed application is the right way to go for that much data. However, Finance used Excel because they could. We all like to talk about how bad an idea it is to do that, but Excel brought financial computations on large data sets to people who can't write any code. It has enabled thousands upon thousands of businesses to do things they couldn't do before without paying a programmer to develop a solution they cannot maintain. The fact that other spreadsheets regularly crater when handed data that Excel has no trouble with is exactly why we have so much Excel.

I like to use Drupal to rapidly create database applications which can handle a lot of data without writing code. But I wouldn't expect someone in accounting to be able to do that at all, and that just shifts the problem domain. Instead of getting stuck with Excel, now I'm getting stuck with Drupal. All of the logic just winds up in a different system that you can't trivially transfer it out of, so you have the same exact maintainability problem, except more people know how to work with Excel.

Or at least it's used as one.

And that does have it's advantages, believe it or not.

Any untrained office worker can open an Excel sheet and run the app that's built with it without any extra training or security and privilege stuff getting in the way. Office workers can build their own logic without having to shop around for some developer to take care of their problem and the ERP budget doesn't have to be touched. And it's even modern purely functional programming. ... That's how you eventually get Shadow IT that often becomes mission critical.

What SQL used to be in the 70ies Excel & VBA is today. Wether that's an improvement I couldn't really say für sure, but that's the way it is.