• Hackworth@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    The different uses of AI are not inexctricable. This is the point of the post. We should be able to talk about the good and the bad.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      We should be able to talk about the good and the bad.

      Again, I point you to “implicit costs”. Something this trivial isn’t good if it’s this expensive.

      • Hackworth@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        The different uses of AI are not inexctricable.

        Many generative inpainting models will run locally

        Continuing to treat AI as a monolith is missing the point.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          The value of the modern LLM is predicated on trained models. You can run the models locally. You can’t run industry scale training locally.

          Might as well say “The automotive industry isn’t so bad if you just look at the carbon footprint of a single car”. You’re missing the forest for this one very small tree.

          • Hackworth@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            Generative inpainting doesn’t typically employ an LLM. Only a few even use attention transformers. It costs in the range of $100,000 - $10 million to train a new diffusion or flow image model. Not cheap, but nothing crazy like training Opus or GPT 5.