The model exists already — abstaining from using it doesn’t make the energy consumption go away. I don’t think it’s reasonable to let historic energy costs drive what you do, else you would never touch a computer.
Running a 500W GPU 24/7 for a full year is less than a quarter of the energy consumed by the average automobile in the US (in 2000). I don’t know how many GPUs this person has or how long it took to fine tune the model, but it’s clearly not creating an ecological disaster. Please understand there is a huge difference between the power consumed by companies training cutting-edge models at massive scale/speed, compared to a locally deployed model doing only fine tuning and inferencing.
Yea but opposing 'kings' isn't even close to the problem of 'oligarchs'
I don’t disagree, but for the sake of elections, they’re effectively equivalent. I agree the billionaires are most of the problem, but their names aren’t on the ballot. It’s the guy who is trying to play king.
The article title is incredibly misleading. Even the first sentence of the article makes clear what she was actually saying:
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) has urged her Democratic colleagues to stop attacking the “oligarchy” on Thursday, arguing that the word did not resonate with most Americans and should be replaced with “kings.”
She’s advocating for using a more relatable term, not for a change in party values. The “woke” comment irks me, but again is focused on terminology and not ideology.
When you need the dumb fucks’ votes, you gotta speak their language. Or at least water it down to be palatable to someone who was “educated” in our broken-ass system.
Idk man, I feel like you’re striving for perfection in an imperfect world. I agree it would be nice for all email to be plain-text and with no clickables, but that’s not the world we live in, and getting companies to remove them from mandatory emails is an uphill battle.
While it’s true that there’s no way to completely eliminate spoofed “From” addresses, I think it’s fair to say it’s rare, and that checking the “From” address will conquer a significant chunk of phishing attempts. The training isn’t meant to 100% eliminate the effects of phishing attacks, it’s meant to reduce the number.
But the truth is emails may be dangerous, and the trainings exist to show people how to tell the difference. What reasonable alternative is there? Your argument is effectively “People will never learn how to use a fire extinguisher so why bother doing fire safety training. Some fires are so bad that a fire extinguisher will do nothing.” We don’t control the danger, but we can manage and minimize the risk through training.
I don’t see the problem, is that not the point of phishing tests? Users need to ensure the sender is legitimate before taking action such as clicking links.
Now do ICE!
The model exists already — abstaining from using it doesn’t make the energy consumption go away. I don’t think it’s reasonable to let historic energy costs drive what you do, else you would never touch a computer.
The point is that OP (most probably) didn’t train it — they downloaded a pre-trained model and only did fine-tuning and inference.
Running a 500W GPU 24/7 for a full year is less than a quarter of the energy consumed by the average automobile in the US (in 2000). I don’t know how many GPUs this person has or how long it took to fine tune the model, but it’s clearly not creating an ecological disaster. Please understand there is a huge difference between the power consumed by companies training cutting-edge models at massive scale/speed, compared to a locally deployed model doing only fine tuning and inferencing.
Sure, but I would say it’s a good thing to focus on for a minority political party.
I don’t disagree, but for the sake of elections, they’re effectively equivalent. I agree the billionaires are most of the problem, but their names aren’t on the ballot. It’s the guy who is trying to play king.
The article title is incredibly misleading. Even the first sentence of the article makes clear what she was actually saying:
She’s advocating for using a more relatable term, not for a change in party values. The “woke” comment irks me, but again is focused on terminology and not ideology.
When you need the dumb fucks’ votes, you gotta speak their language. Or at least water it down to be palatable to someone who was “educated” in our broken-ass system.
Besides the Tesla, none of these are easily achievable by a non-executive working at Apple at age 33.
You’re on first shift duty
Maybe it’s an eMMC chip on an embedded device?
Idk man, I feel like you’re striving for perfection in an imperfect world. I agree it would be nice for all email to be plain-text and with no clickables, but that’s not the world we live in, and getting companies to remove them from mandatory emails is an uphill battle.
While it’s true that there’s no way to completely eliminate spoofed “From” addresses, I think it’s fair to say it’s rare, and that checking the “From” address will conquer a significant chunk of phishing attempts. The training isn’t meant to 100% eliminate the effects of phishing attacks, it’s meant to reduce the number.
But the truth is emails may be dangerous, and the trainings exist to show people how to tell the difference. What reasonable alternative is there? Your argument is effectively “People will never learn how to use a fire extinguisher so why bother doing fire safety training. Some fires are so bad that a fire extinguisher will do nothing.” We don’t control the danger, but we can manage and minimize the risk through training.
I don’t see the problem, is that not the point of phishing tests? Users need to ensure the sender is legitimate before taking action such as clicking links.
GTA V?
What hate did he spew?
I want them to have to explain their idiotic opinion so they can fail to defend it
What do you mean?
I would never claim that China is performing less surveillance of its citizens. They definitely are a world leader in this, in a very bad way.
However, mindless commenters spamming social credit demerits on any post that mentions China only serve to feed the exaggerations and inaccuracies.
Fine, what national security obligations are US-based social media companies meeting that TikTok/ByteDance is not?
Like what? What are American companies required to do to protect your privacy that TikTok doesn’t do because they are a Chinese company?