364
submitted 1 month ago by 101@feddit.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
top 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 51 points 1 month ago

The source didn’t have this detail - google training gemini “cloud” vs “own hardware”. Does Google Cloud not count as “own hardware” for google?

[-] bjorney@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 month ago

Does Google Cloud not count as “own hardware” for google?

That's why the bars are so different. The "cloud" price is MSRP

[-] pandapoo@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This is an accounting trick as well, a way to shed profit, and maximize deductions, by having different units within a parent company purchase services from each other.

I realize that my sentence long explainer doesn't shed any light on how it gets done, but funnily enough, you can ask an LLM for an explainer and I bet it'd give a mostly accurate response.

Edit: Fuck it, I asked an LLM myself and just converted my first sentence into a prompt, by asking what that was called, and how it's done. Here's the reply:

This practice is commonly referred to as "transfer pricing." Transfer pricing involves the pricing of goods, services, and intangible assets that are transferred between related parties, such as a parent company and its subsidiaries.

Transfer pricing can be used to shift profits from one subsidiary to another, often to minimize taxes or maximize deductions. This can be done by setting prices for goods and services that are not at arm's length, meaning they are not the same prices that would be charged to unrelated parties.

For example, a parent company might have a subsidiary in a low-tax country purchase goods from another subsidiary in a high-tax country at an artificially low price. This would reduce the profits of the high-tax subsidiary and increase the profits of the low-tax subsidiary, resulting in lower overall taxes.

However, it's worth noting that transfer pricing must be done in accordance with the arm's length principle, which requires that the prices charged between related parties be the same as those that would be charged to unrelated parties. Many countries have laws and regulations in place to prevent abusive transfer pricing practices and ensure that companies pay their fair share of taxes.

[-] General_Effort@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

From the source:

Our primary approach calculates training costs based on hardware depreciation and energy consumption over the duration of model training. Hardware costs include AI accelerator chips (GPUs or TPUs), servers, and interconnection hardware. We use either disclosures from the developer or credible third-party reporting to identify or estimate the hardware type and quantity and training run duration for a given model. We also estimate the energy consumption of the hardware during the final training run of each model.

As an alternative approach, we also calculate the cost to train these models in the cloud using rented hardware. This method is very simple to calculate because cloud providers charge a flat rate per chip-hour, and energy and interconnection costs are factored into the prices. However, it overestimates the cost of many frontier models, which are often trained on hardware owned by the developer rather than on rented cloud hardware.

https://epochai.org/blog/how-much-does-it-cost-to-train-frontier-ai-models

[-] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 35 points 1 month ago

I don't care how they estimate their cost in dollars. I think the cost to all of us in environmental impact would be more interesting.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Unless they're finding exciting new and efficient ways to generate electricity, I imagine its a linear comparison. Maybe some are worse than others. I know Grok's datacenter in Mississippi is relying exclusively on portable gas powered electric generators that are wrecking havoc on the local environment.

[-] downhomechunk@midwest.social 4 points 1 month ago

Gas like natural gas? Or gas like gasoline? I'm sure it's the former, but I take nothing for granted anymore.

[-] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 month ago

I didn't know that; thanks for sharing.

(BTW, I think you meant wreaking havoc.)

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

All my misspellings are part of my charm.

[-] linearchaos@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Maybe this is the push we need to switch to nuclear. The attack is good it just needs somebody with deeper pockets than coal/gas to lobby it.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Microsoft is trying to restart Three Mile Island. But that's a very old facility. I don't see too much interest in building new ones.

[-] linearchaos@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Kind of. Microsoft is offering to buy the electricity and put jobs and data centers nearby, the state is reactivating the site.

If more AI companies dedicate to buying vast amounts of electricity, there's money and jobs in it

But if they eye companies start making concentrated demand, It won't people with deep pockets long to figure out how to turn up some small scale high output plants.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

If more AI companies dedicate to buying vast amounts of electricity, there’s money and jobs in it

Google the history of the Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors in Georgia. I don't think tech firms have 16 years to invest in new energy plants.

[-] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

Honestly you can thank decades of anti-nuclear lobbying

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

More the plunge in O&G prices during the 1980s. Coal, oil, and natural gas got incredibly cheap under Reagan after the US cut sweetheart deals with the Saudis. Nuclear has huge upfront development costs, while oil, gas, and coal are very cheap to start up and run incredibly high margins.

Lobbying and activism had very little impact, as evidenced by the campaigns against coal waste and gas flaring and strip mining that all fell flat.

[-] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 month ago

I want to see what the long term economic cost was after they fired tens of thousands of tech workers hoping to replace us with AI. It feels like workers are always the ones who suffer the most under capitalism.

[-] linearchaos@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

They'll fire more than that when the AI bubble busts and they stop pushing so hard into that development as it stagnates.

[-] linearchaos@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago

How in the hell is Gemini both two and a half times more expensive and vastly inferior to GPT?

[-] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Some claim due to it was trained on too much data with too little intervention

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Maybe we donnot understand what its objective function actually wants?

Maybe it is impeding its users intentionally.

[-] PixeIOrange@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Google sucks

[-] Wispy2891@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

It's obvious that Google didn't pay the crazy AWS prices to train Gemini, seeing how many servers they have in gcp.

They mean that they used creative accounting to pay themselves crazy gcp usage bills to deduct from taxes?

[-] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 month ago

bro who the fuck is google paying to do cloud compute for them? Google cloud??

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I assume they've come up with some generic cost if someone was training each model using cloud compute.

Eeit: below comments confirm this, from the source.

god i love accounting, it's so much fun.

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

But this isn't accounting, this is just the way the study calculated stuff.

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Lets make our model sound cooler by paying high rates to ourselves!

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Man you and the other dude are trying way too hard to be outraged about something that doesn't exist here.

This isn't data that Google, etc claimed. The srudy is attempting to represent what they believe the financial coat to train these models would have been.

[-] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

Geez, you’d think Gemini would be better than it is if they spent that much on it…

[-] kromem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Base model =/= Corpo fine tune

[-] potentiallynotfelix@lemmy.fish 13 points 1 month ago

and gemini is still hot ass

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

because this entire model of AI as an idea is garbage to begin with

[-] Mwa@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago
[-] hark@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Now imagine if they had to pay for the content they're training the models off of.

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Only 80 million dollars for gpt4? Cheaper than expected

[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

How is Inflection-2 cheaper to train in the cloud than own hardware?

[-] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

That probably indicates a problem with the estimates.

[-] DogEatWaffle@startrek.website 3 points 1 month ago

Humanity: develops nuclear fusion

AI:

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

It's like the south park "Now we can finally play the game" but for AI. First we get infinite energy and then we can train an AI to calculate how we can create infinite energy.

[-] DaddysLittleSlut@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

We must consider the benefits of AI as such and how they can contribute to our life. I can assure you prices of such while AI may seem like a game or useless thing for others. It’s actually a useful tool able to help others understand complex concepts that most people have a hard time explaining or won’t. Many more things too.

[-] Soup@lemmy.cafe 1 points 1 month ago

All that shit needs to be just down and not revisited again.

[-] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago

I love this kind of delusional statement.

"Researchers spent tens of billions of dollars, and put decades into research, and now that there is breakthrough progress in applied machine learning, but we should bury all knowledge of it and abandon the entire sector because of vibes."

Scepticism of AI businesses and hype is perfectly understandable, but you're not putting this cat back in the bag...

[-] Soup@lemmy.cafe 3 points 1 month ago

“It cost a lot, so it absolutely should be allowed!”

Is an even dumber excuse to keep it going.

this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
364 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59379 readers
2865 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS