Hacker News Reader

Comment by caycep | Hacker News Reader

true. I wonder how much energy in food/farming to develop a 6 yr old human is required vs. the amount required to run a hojillion GPUs running the latest generative algorithms

View on HN

Most people can probably answer about some subset of questions better than GPT4 can, but I don't think there's a human alive who could answer nearly as competently on >50% of the questions if gets asked. So I don't know why you'd benchmark it against a 6 year old. If you compare the carbon impact of training one of these to the carbon footprint of the average American family, it's an incredible deal in terms of utility.

Assuming dollar cost is a relevant metric, the 6yr old human is far cheaper.

But can a 6 year old answer millions upon millions of queries?

You need a lot of 6 year olds.

Hasn't everything in ChatGPT - been posted by 6 year olds on reddit, and ChatGPT is simply a very impressive indexer and query interface? :-)

The real question is ChatGPT a better information retrieval tool that the old Google search interface before they dumbed it down?

For me the main differences are that for ChatGPT it summarises across multiple sources - sometimes good, sometimes not, and the refinement of queries feels much more natural with it's use of context.

Though I often find myself fighting both the new Google search interface and ChatGPT to try and get the right answers to the specific area I want.

luckily, we have hundreds of millions of 6 year olds addicted to reddit who will answer whatever question you might have.

The training costs of the 6 year old are millions of years of evolution and suffering of billions of people.

Irrelevant, as that's already been paid.

sunk cost fallacy

Reply on news.ycombinator.com