285
Linus Torvalds says AI has made 'huge' Linux kernel updates the new normal (www.theregister.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
136 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I think there are physical and economic limits. Neural networks may improve in software, but they still need more and more hardware, at some point that hardware resource curve is going to be to steep to climb at the current rate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Why are you assuming that software improvements don't include less resource utilization?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    I think there are physical and economic limits. Neural networks may improve in software, but they still need more and more hardware, at some point that hardware resource curve is going to be to steep to climb at the current rate.

    It's true, but think like the crypto miner bugs. I don't know enough on AI's working, but is a distributed computing LLM possible, or is the need for super close super low latency between nodes eliminate the risk of a distributed computing, learn as it travels botnet powered AI worm, that continues evolving even if it's home is shut down.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    You could likely do some sort of distrubuted system in machines that had a reasonable graphics card, or shared memory like the M series macs. Have it silently intall a 30b parameter model or higher and somehow hide how that space is being used.

    Local models are getting pretty good, and one focused on hacking / bot net behavior could probably do very well at that size.

    But you'd notice it being used... fans would go off, frame rates drop etc. You'd probably need to code it to only do stuff when it seems idle?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    well my thought is, more the botnet side of it, IE pushing less on individual machines, but more on massive distribution. IE it not needing one computer strong enough to run it, IE expecting 90% of the machines it infects to be average consumer PCs, but making more use out of 1000 systems that can handle 1% each, rather than 1 computer that handles 100%, however yeah I do suppose also allowing it to do the bulk of the work when the computer is likely unused etc... and I don't know much on the concept of communication etc... IE most major botnets were crushed by a command center being shut down. Imagining a different form that has, basically makes C&C's on the fly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •