[ExI] ChatGPT 'Not Interesting' for creative works

[Darin Sunley]

ChatGPT3 has ~175 billion parameters. Training it requires
datacenters of computing power. But the model itself will fit into a
relatively small number of desktop PCs, even without compression. I'm
pretty sure the model itself can be compressed to where paths through it
will fit in the memory of a beefy desktop.

On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 7:29 PM spike jones via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
> >... On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
>
> Ecclesiastes 12:12
> And further, my son, be admonished by these. Of making many books there is
> no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh.
> ----------
>
> >...And now we have the Internet, self-publishing, Kindle and ChatGPT.
> We have so much to read it is indeed wearisome to the flesh.
> I don't think Stephenson is talking just about his personal preferences. If
> computers can now produce ream after ream of plausible words strung
> together, what is the point of spending human time reading this endless
> stream? If there is no human personality behind it, then let another
> machine
> read it.
>
>
> BillK
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> Ja!  This thread has long been heading in this direction BillK: we need
> versions of ChatGPT that can be personally owned and operated.  I am told
> it
> requires tons of bandwidth and computing speed, but I don't understand why
> one couldn't have a micro-ChatGPT that operates on my one processor and
> uses
> my modest home bandwidth, going out researching in its background computing
> cycles and searching around mostly as I sleep.  I don't understand why it
> wouldn't gradually get smarter and become a better companion, if it can be
> trained by me.  It hasta be able to learn and remember what I told it.
>
> I still want to try that experiment where you train a micro-ChatGPT, I
> train
> one, then we have the two debate away in the night.  Then we see what they
> said.  That should be a hoot.
>
> If anyone here knows exactly why ChatGPT can't be scaled down by six orders
> of magnitude and sold to consumers, do educate me please.  Seems to me like
> whatever magic that banks of a thousand computers can do can be done at a
> thousandth that pace with one.  Ja?  Why not?  I want to try it.
>
> Thanks for the cool Ecclesiastes quote, me lad!
>
> spike
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230305/dfd44c29/attachment.htm>