• Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          I’m supposed to be able to take a model architecture from today, scale it up 100x and get an improvement. I can’t make the settings in Crysis 100x higher than they can go.

          Games always have a limit, AI is supposed to get better with scale. Which part do you not understand?