zlacker

>>tedsan+(OP)
I'm confused and a bit disturbed; honestly having a very difficult time internalizing and processing this information. This announcement is making me wonder if I'm poorly calibrated on the current progress of AI development and the potential path forward. Is the key idea here that current AI development has figured out enough to brute force a path towards AGI? Or I guess the alternative is that they expect to figure it out in the next 4 years...

I don't know how to make sense of this level of investment. I feel that I lack the proper conceptual framework to make sense of the purchasing power of half a trillion USD in this context.

>>TheAce+9g
Largest GPU cluster at the moment is X.ai's 100K H100's which is ~$2.5B worth of GPUs. So, something 10x bigger (1M GPUs) is $25B, and add $10B for 1GW nuclear reactor.

This sort of $100-500B budget doesn't sound like training cluster money, more like anticipating massive industry uptake and multiple datacenters running inference (with all of corporate America's data sitting in the cloud).

>>HarHar+9l
Don't they say in the article that it is also for scaling up power and datacenters? That's the big cost here.

>>anonzz+u81
There's the servers and data center infrastructure (cooling, electricity) as well as the GPUs of course, but if we're talking $10B+ of GPUs in a single datacenter, it seems that would dominate. Electricity generation is also a big expense, and it seems nuclear is the most viable option although multi-GW solar plants are possible too in some locations. The 1GW ~ $10B number I suggested is in the right ballpark.