site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 3, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

24
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Even if we assume the high-end of your range, and say that for the foreseeable future training a near-state-of-the-art deep learning model from scratch will cost around half a million dollars, that's still cheap enough to be considered fairly democratic. A lot of people and organisations have that sort of money, many of which exist outside of the Cathedral. And as you say, you can do a lot by tuning an existing model, which is feasible for hobbyists.

I think for the sort of controls you're worried about, it's not just a matter of who can afford to buy it, but also who can afford to sell it. Not just that there's a few limited companies doing this stuff, but in the sense that if you come up to the sorta companies that have and resell these resources, they demonstrably will start poking around at what you're doing, how you're paying them, and what you're doing.

((Not... uh, very effectively in an anti-fraud sense, given Amazon. But very effectively in a not-doing-things-they-don't-like, given Amazon.))

Eventually that stops being a problem as used past-generation tensor core GPUs trickle out into the used market (uh, assuming ITAR doesn't get involved), or as resellers are able to more heavily obscure stuff at larger scales, or as the relative scales decrease due to performance and efficiency gains.

But it is worth keeping in mind as a limit to the democratization of the space.

It's also possible that manufacturers could nerf GPUs for the purpose of ML except for customers with whom they have a special relationship. See e.g. the rate limiting NVIDIA did for crypto mining while still selling a higher priced card without the nerfing.

Yeah, that's another risk. It didn't work for the anti-mining stuff, but given politics and economics around ML that may have stronger incentives.

Crippling GPUs works very well in one context I've seen: FP64. Games don't use it so manufacturers don't get dinged for having lousy performance with it, and engineers/mathematicians/scientists won't flinch at paying through the nose for "professional" GPGPU cards, so with a few exceptions (Titan Black, Radeon VII, and even those were high-end) you get a pittance of FP64 support on consumer cards.

But there's a very well-delineated difference between 32-bit and 64-bit floats. What's the clear technical difference between "bad ML models, which we want to keep away from hobbyists" and "good ML models, which everybody's going to be throwing into their game engines as fast as studios can train them"? The difficulty of slowing down "bad" algorithms but not "good" ones was effectively the problem with crypto rate limiting, (which only brought the cards down to 50% speed and only worked on some crypto types and was quickly foiled via driver or BIOS changes), not any special societal support for cryptocurrency. Compare DRM, which despite massive political and economic support gets broken over and over again because from a technical standpoint the problem statement is almost a self-contradiction.

Yeah, that's plausible. So far, it's been possible to prune down to 16 or even 8-bytes-per, but it's definitely something that takes some tweaking to do right, and may not be possible for all or even most useful models.