Input vs output tokens are both unique per agent history (prompt + output), so that differentiation doesn't matter for my core argument about the RAM constraint. If you have a model which needs 1TB of KV cache, and you aren't magically sharing that significantly between instances, then you'll need at least 1000 * 1TB of RAM to run 1000 inferences in parallel.

The 3x - 10x cost ratio model providers charge is an economic observation that tells us something about the current cost vs utility tradeoffs, but it's much complicated by oversimpliciation of the current pricing models (they are not currently charging their true costs, probably because that would be too complicated, but also perhaps reveal too much information - their true cost would be more like charging rent on RAM for every timestep). It just tells you that very roughly, that on average, the mean (averaged over many customer requests) flop utilization of the generation phase (parallel over instances) is perhaps 3x to 10x lower than the prefill phase (parallel over time) - but it doesn't directly tell you why.

This is all downstream dependent on model design and economics. There are many useful requests that LLMs can fulfill without using barely any KV cache - essentially all google/oracle type use cases where you are just asking the distilled wisdom of the internet a question. If those were all of the request volume, then the KV cache RAM per instance would be inconsequential, inference batch sizes would be > 1000, inference flop utilization would be the same for prefill vs generation, and providers would charge the same price for input vs output tokens.

On the other extreme, if all requests used up the full training context window, then the flop utilization of inference would be constrained by approximately (max_KV_cache_RAM + weight_RAM / max_KV_cache_RAM ) / alu_ratio. For example if the KV cache is 10% of RAM, and alu_ratio is 1000:1, generation would have max efficiency of 1%. If infill efficiency was 30%, then output tokens would presumably be priced 30x more than input tokens.

So the observed input:output token pricing is dependent on the combination of KV_cache RAM fraction (largely a model design decision), current efficiency of implementations of infill vs generation, and most importantly - the distribution of request prompt lengths, which itself is dependent on the current economic utility of shorter vs longer prompts for current models.

In practice most current models have a much smaller KV cache to weight RAM fraction than my simple 1:1 example, but the basic point holds: training is more flop & interconnect limited, inference is more RAM and ram bw limited. But these constraints already shape the design space of models and how they are deployed.

LLMs currently excel at anything a human knowledge worker can do without any specific training (minimal input prompt length), but largely aren't yet competitive with human experts at most real world economic tasks that require significant unique per-job training. Coding is a good example - human thoughtspeed is roughly 9 token/s, or 32K/hour, or 256K per 8 hour work day, or roughly 1M tokens per week.

Current GPT4-turbo (one of the current leaders for coding), for example, has a max context length of 128K (roughly 4 hours). But if you actually use all of that for each request for typical coding requests that generate say 1K of useful output (equivalent to a few minutes of human thought), that will cost you about $1.25 for the input tokens, but only about $0.03 for the output tokens. That costs about as much as a human worker, per minute of output thought tokens. The cost of any LLM agent today (per minute of output thought) increases linearily with input prompt length - ie the agent's unique differentiating short term memory. Absent more sophisticated algorithms, the cost of running a react-like LLM agent thus grows quadratically with time, vs linear for humans (because each small observe-act time step has cost proportional to input context length, which grows per time step).

Human programmers aren't being replaced en masse (yet) in part because current models aren't especially smarter than humans at equivalent levels of job-specific knowledge/training.

Normalized for similar ability, LLMs currently are cheaper than humans at most any knowledge work that requires very little job-specific knowledge/training, and much more expensive than humans for tasks that require extensive job-specific knowledge/training - and this has everything to do with how transformers currently consume and utilize VRAM.

Not for transformers, for which training and inference are fundamentally different.

Transformer training parallelizes over time, but that isn't feasible for inference. So transformer inference backends have to parallelize over batch/space, just like RNNs, which is enormously less efficient in RAM and RAM bandwidth use.

So if you had a large attention model that uses say 1TB of KV cache (fast weights) and 1TB of slow weights, transformer training can often run near full efficiency, flop limited, parallelizing over time.

But similar full efficient transformer inference would require running about K instances/agents in parallel, where K is the flop/mem_bw ratio (currently up to 1000 on H100). So that would be 1000 * 1TB of RAM for the KV cache (fast weights) as its unique per agent instance.

This, in a nutshell, is part of why we don't already have AGI. Transformers are super efficient at absorbing book knowledge, but just as inefficient as RNNs at inference (generating new experiences, which is a key bottleneck on learning from experience).

Thus there is of course much research in more efficient long kv cache, tree/graph inference that can share some of the KV cache over similar branching agents, etc

Due to practical reasons, the compute requirements for training LLMs is several orders of magnitude larger than what is required for running a single inference instance.  In particular, a single NVIDIA H100 GPU can run inference at a throughput of about 2000 tokens/s, while Meta trained Llama3 70B on a GPU cluster^[1] of about 24,000 GPUs.  Assuming we require a performance of 40 tokens/s, the training cluster can run $\frac{2000}{40}\times 24000=1,200,000$ concurrent instances of the resulting 70B model.

I agree direction-ally with your headline, but your analysis here assumes flops is the primary constraint on inference scaling.  Actually it looks like VRAM is already the more important constraint, and would likely become even more dominant if AGI requires more brain-like models.

LLMs need VRAM for both 'static' and 'dynamic' weights.  The static weights are the output of the long training process, and shared over all instances of the same model or fine tune (LORAs share most).  However the dynamic 'weights' - in the attention KV cache - are essentially unique to each individual instance of the model, specific to its current working memory context and chain of thought.

So the key parameters here are total model size and dynamic vs static ratio (which depends heavily on context length and many other factors).  But for example if dynamic is 50% of the RAM usage then 1M concurrent instances would require almost as many GPUs.

If AGI requires scaling up to very large brain-size models ~100T params (which seems likely), and the dynamic ratio is even just 1%, then 1M concurrent instances would require on order 10M GPUs.

How is that even remotely relevant? Humans and AIs learn the same way, via language - and its not like this learning process fails just because language undersamples thoughts.

As the article points out, shared biological needs do not much deter the bear or chimpanzee from killing you. An AI could be perfectly human - the very opposite of alien - and far more dangerous than Hitler or Dhamer.

The article is well written but dangerously wrong in its core point. AI will be far more human than alien. But alignment/altruism is mostly orthogonal to human vs alien.

We are definitely not training AIs on human thoughts because language is an expression of thought, not thought itself.

Even if training on language was not equivalent to training on thoughts, that would also apply to humans.

But it also seems false in the same way that "we are definitely not training AI's on reality because image files are compressed sampled expressions of images, not reality itself" is false.

Approximate bayesian inference (ie DL) can infer the structure of a function through its outputs; the structure of the 3D world through images; and thoughts through language.

Premise 1: AGIs would be like a second advanced species on earth, more powerful than humans.

Distinct alien species arise only from distinct separated evolutionary histories. Your example of the aliens from Arrival are indeed a good (hypothetical) example of truly alien minds resulting from a completely independent evolutionary history on an alien world. Any commonalities between us and them would be solely the result of convergent evolutionary features. They would have completely different languages, cultures, etc.

AI is not alien at all, as we literally train AI on human thoughts. As a result we constrain our AI systems profoundly, creating them in our mental image. Any AGI we create will inevitably be far closer to human uploads than alien minds. This a prediction Moravec made as early as 1988 (Mind Children) - now largely fulfilled by the strong circuit convergence/correspondence between modern AI and brains.

Minds are software mental constructs, and alien minds would require alien culture. Instead we are simply creating new hardware for our existing (cultural) mind software.

I also not sure of the relevance and not following the thread fully, but the summary of that experiment is that it takes some time (measured in nights of sleep which are rough equivalent of big batch training updates) for the newly sighted to develop vision, but less time than infants - presumably because the newly sighted already have full functioning sensor inference world models in another modality that can speed up learning through dense top down priors.

But its way way more than "grok it really fast with just a few examples" - training their new visual systems still takes non-trivial training data & time

I suspect that much of the appeal of shard theory is working through detailed explanations of model-free RL with general value function approximation for people who mostly think of AI in terms of planning/search/consequentialism.

But if you already come from a model-free RL value approx perspective, shard theory seems more natural.

Moment to moment decisions are made based on value-function bids, with little to no direct connection to reward or terminal values. The 'shards' are just what learned value-function approximating subcircuits look like in gory detail.

The brain may have a prior towards planning subcircuitry, but even without a strong prior planning submodules will eventually emerge naturally in a model-free RL learning machine of sufficient scale (there is no fundamental difference between model-free and model-based for universal learners). TD like updates ensure that the value function extends over longer timescales as training progresses. (and in general humans seem to plan on timescales which scale with their lifespan, as you'd expect)

TSMC 4N is a little over 1e10 transistors/cm^2 for GPUs and roughly 5e^-18 J switch energy assuming dense activity (little dark silicon). The practical transistor density limit with minimal few electron transistors is somewhere around ~5e11 trans/cm^2, but the minimal viable high speed switching energy is around ~2e^-18J. So there is another 1 to 2 OOM further density scaling, but less room for further switching energy reduction. Thus scaling past this point increasingly involves dark silicon or complex expensive cooling and thus diminishing returns either way.

Achieving 1e-15 J/flop seems doable now for low precision flops (fp4, perhaps fp8 with some tricks/tradeoffs); most of the cost is data movement as pulling even a single bit from RAM just 1 cm away costs around 1e-12J.