Hacker News Reader

Comment by onion2k | Hacker News Reader

He's right. Most people don't use much of the RAM in their PC. Having 16GB or 32GB as standard on a PC when Apple's 8GB M1 demonstrated you can do a huge amount of work with much less proves it. Moving the majority of RAM to data centers where it's utilization could be much higher would be a more efficient use of resources.

There are still reasons for people to have a lot locally, but it shouldn't be the default.

There's a meme for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbreaking:_The_Worst_Perso...

View on HN

Maybe the right meme would be “Isn’t there someone you forgot to ask” with someone shopping RAM and a picture of Sam Altman?

It's right if you only focus on the resource allocation aspect. (Which would be a bit hypocritical as other comments here are mentioning).

But the elephant in the room is the question of who would control all that RAM and set or change the rules about which usages are allowed, for what price and which aren't allowed.

This against the backdrop of Anthropic just now deciding to block using Claude for reverse-engineering video games.

Or to go with your meme, the person you hate didn't just make a great point, they would also get to control what you do with your computer. Would you be fine with that?

A modern OS will use any “spare” RAM as a page/disk cache. Without that, performance will become intolerable sooner, thus driving consumer demand for newer machines and more RAM chips. And a newer model is unlikely to have less RAM in the spec than the older model it replaces…

To extend this line of thought ..

Whats better if all the RAM, CPU and storage of phones went to DCs. People are more productive without phones. They work instead of consuming content. The tens of thousands of hours lost (opportunity cost), even at a minimum wage is >$1 million over a lifetime.

it could just be me, but I think there's a difference between maximizing the efficiency and utility of some RAM and maximizing the output of a person. The person has freedom and choice. We want them to be able to do what they want, because the downside is slavery, which is bad.

'Enslaving' RAM so we can get the most work from it as we can isn't quite the same.

I think many here would say the hyperscalers enjoy that the masses can't afford, e.g., ample local RAM (especially GPU RAM) because then they are encouraged to "rent" it from them. And that could lead to a feedback cycle where no-one could independely run models, due to (artificially created) economic conditions. And going further, if your personal economic prosperity is dependent on running capable LLMs, then while you may not be "enslaved" per se but you are certainly forced to pay these large companies for the racket they created and benefit from.

(No one is saying the RAM is "enslaved")

EDIT: upon re-reading, maybe we agree

B-but how are you going to be available and responding to emails and Slack DMs 24/7 without a phone?! I guess an employer could allocate each worker a dumbphone that has no other functions than letting your boss reach you. And check where you are physically, probably.

I kind of feel this way about condominiums vs self standing houses, and I think the benefits and problems are comparable.

In the condo I used to own, I shared 5 out 6 faces of the box with neighbors. Cheapest electricity bills I ever had because you're mutually insulating your neighbors.

However, my HOA fees were more than that savings. The chairman noticed we had a lot of money in the reserves and pushed for a vote to do a multimillion dollar renovation. Popularity contest for things I don't value and HOA fees go up. Want to make a change or need to make a repair, need to get approval from the board.

Anyway, I'm sure the parallels are obvious with a little imagination, but I prefer a standalone house.

I am a bit confused on your position - are you saying HOA's are uniquely awful, or saying that we should all have equal access to local RAM (and Sam Altman is like the chairman of the biggest & least efficient HOA ever)?

I know it's popular to take a black or white position and fight viciously about it, but I didn't say either of the choices you're offering. Some things are shades of grey.

Really though, I just wanted to point out that there's a difference between efficient use of limited resources and lower prices and convenience for consumers.

I would have agreed if your RAM were equivalent to their RAM.

If one could use their RAM in a way that was actually private and without leading to them accumulating huge power it would be different matter.

I agree with people having excess memory on their computers.

What I don’t like is the idea of rationing it and making it more and more expensive when you promise an era of abundance.

This would be true to first order if people wanted the work being done in the new crop of ram hungry data centers to be done at all. In that case it would come down to a complicated nest of relative efficiencies, incentives, issues of govt corruption etc. However, the individuals with ram largely despise the work done in datacenters so its moot.

We should make sure we are allocating travel to the people who enjoy it most also. More efficient you see.

Oh wait, much of the basis of the modern economy is letting individuals make decisions for themselves.

You'll own nothing and Sam Altman will be happy.

They just need more electron crapware from you guys. Problem solved.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com