I think you misread me, that is the common theory yeah

Why would it be wandering around if it was stuck in a relatively small space? It can sit or lie down, being bipedal doesn’t mean it needs to be constantly standing or walking.

I looked into this afterward and there’s actually a study by Barrick and Showers (1999) estimating that a large tyrannosaur could consume 2 - 3 weeks’ worth of food in a single meal, and that’s before accounting for its existing fat reserves. Remember, a starving animal will burn through its fat reserves and eventually its muscle tissue before it dies, so at that size it’s potentially got significant runway.

There’s also Kleiber’s law, which says larger animals have proportionally lower energy requirements relative to their body mass. Obviously a rex would need an enormous amount of food in absolute terms, but that doesn’t mean it would actually need to eat particularly frequently. Throw that all together and i highly doubt a month would be enough to starve one to death.

Dehydration is a much better argument though, I’ll give you that. I’ve no idea how long a rex could survive without water, and I doubt anyone can reliably estimate it. I’d imagine that would kill it long before starvation did.

Although interestingly, the original scenario only says you’re provided with food, it doesn’t actually mention water for either of you.

But if it rained, water would pool in its footprints and you’d definitely be screwed.

Oddly enough, the larger an animal is, the less food it generally needs relative to its body mass. “Kleiber’s law” basically says that an animal’s energy requirements increase more slowly than its body mass. A rex would have had enormous absolute energy requirements, but could likely have survived considerably longer than a week without eating.

A predator like that probably won’t starve in a month. Its a bit hard to say, you could compare with a crocodile (larger ones can fast for 2 - 3 years) but they are cold blooded which is a huge metabolic advantage here.

Lions can go 2 weeks without eating, and are far smaller which means there’s less of them to waste away before they perish. A massive predator like a rex would having huge amounts of mass to lose before it died.

Chances are they probably only ate every 1 to 2 weeks by default. A month is not much of a stretch for it, so you likely fail.

The original point was that expanding data centres doesn’t disprove a big increase in efficiency per token. Usage, advsnced models/tokens per query and infrastructure can all grow at the same time as the energy required for an individual token falls. And thats an ongoing process.

Companies you know cutting token spend, you thinking ubiquitous AI adoption is unrealistic, and newer models using more tokens per query are all arguments about future/total demand. None of them actually tell us whether a token is dramatically cheaper or more energy efficient to produce than it was a year ago. Realistically thats a learning curve problem, if someone is throwing a basic question at a model far more complex than it needs they are creating the inefficiency and that needs to be made more obvious/streamlined.

I’ve not claimed demand had increased 900x. You inferred that from the existence of new data centres, which was the faulty bit of reasoning I was responding to in the first place.

Based on what rationale?

My stance? What about stance?

Thats good for you, I usually dont preach to people about how to interact with the Internet, but thats just me.

Ive already said i was wasted when I pulled that figure out of my ass.

And the other guy has already acknowledged that the underlying sentiment that is has become a lot more efficient is true.

If they need more than that, its there for them whenever they want.

More what?

You’re not the best conversationalist but its good that you’re working on it.

No.

?

When you lock onto something really hard in a discussion like this it becomes very obvious you’re faltering and dont really have much to contribute.

Yeah I can tell you dont want to look into it, that comes across very clear 😂

You’re just repeating the same point I’ve just addressed, so I’ll explain in more detail.

Data centres expanding is perfectly compatible with huge efficiency gains per token. If the cost of inference falls, companies can afford to run vastly more inference, serve more users, use larger models and embed AI into more products.

It’s the same reason more fuel-efficient cars didn’t eliminate demand for roads or petrol. Efficiency lowers the cost of using something, which can increase total consumption.

So “if software got more efficient, they wouldn’t need more data centres” is basically backwards. The relevant question is whether total AI demand is growing faster than efficiency is improving.

You can find token energy efficiency information studies online, I was smashed when I pulled that figure out of my arse but the numbers are similarly huge.

They’re already orders of magnitude more energy efficient than we predicted just a few years ago and both the software and the hardware continue to accelerate that.

You’re forgetting that usage can still go up while token cost goes down.

Or rather, efficiency and usage can increase at the same time.

Global solar generation has increased by 50% in the last 2 years, meanwhile a token is something like 900 times less energy consuming than it was a year ago?

Something comes first, almost free energy and deeply embedded ai usage or total environmental collapse, capitalism deems that we will find out which in due course.

Some people have friends all over the world that cant make the journey.

Recently had this for a family funeral, 40/50 people from South Africa asked if it could be live-streamed. The immediate family didnt like the idea, but i can appreciate why they asked.