I don't think so. I think some lower courts did, but the Supreme Court changed the rules to ban "blanket injunctions," so every wronged party has to bring their case to the courts and considered on a case-by-case basis. I think there's a case about tariffs that the Supreme Court is supposed to rule on but haven't yet. The admin, right now, can seemingly do anything it wants by just tying up courts with large numbers of illegal acts. They face no consequences for doing so, and the Supreme Court is mostly complicit (and illegitimate).
- Posts
- 14
- Comments
- 445
- Joined
- 8 mo. ago
- Posts
- 14
- Comments
- 445
- Joined
- 8 mo. ago
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Dunno if that's true or not. Generally, much more compute is used in inference than training, since you only train once, then use that model for millions of queries or whatever. However, some of these AI companies may be training many models constantly to one-up each-other and pump their stock; dunno. The "thinking" model paradigm is also transferring a lot more compute to inference. IIRC OpenAI spent $300k of compute just for inference to complete a single benchmark a few months ago (and found that, like training, exponentially increasing amounts of compute are needed for small gains in performance).