Like games have diminished returns on better graphics (it’s already photo realistic few pay $2k on a GPU for more hairs?), AI has a plateau where it gives good enough answers that people will pay for the service.
If people are paying you money and the next level of performance is not appreciated by the general consumer, why spend billions that will take longer to recoup?
And again data centers aren’t just used for AI.
FooBarrington@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
It’s still not a valid comparison. We’re not talking about diminished returns, we’re talking about an actual ceiling. There are only so many options implemented in games - once they’re maxed out, you can’t go higher.
That’s not the situation we have with AI, it’s supposed to scale indefinitely.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Current games have a limit. Current models have a limit. New games could scale until people don’t see a quality improvement. New models can scale until people don’t see a quality improvement.
FooBarrington@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Games always have a limit, AI is supposed to get better with scale. Which part do you not understand?
I’m supposed to be able to take a model from today and scale it up 100x and get an improvement. I can’t make the settings in Crysis 100x higher than they can go.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
You can make Crysis run at higher fps. You can add polygons. (remember ati clown feet?) You can add details to textures. …nvidia.com/…/2016-06_infinite-resolution-texture…
But really the “game” is the model. Throwing more hardware at the same model is like throwing more hardware at the same game.
Which part of diminished returns not offering as much profit did you not understand?
Current models give MS an extra 30% revenue. If they spend billions on a new model will customer pay even more? How much would you pay more for a marginally better AI?