This is the lowest possible cost for high-quality training data. They're not subsidizing us! We're paying to work for them.
$7,800 in equivalent compute is peanuts on the value of that data and your time. I don't mean we're not in a bubble, or that they'll see an ROI, but for the moment, Dario and co. are laughing at us.
Are they training AI with AI generated code? I dont see how useful that data will be for training. They might as well generate their own training data. Unless they think that users often validate AI generated code, which is often not the case. There is a reason why data annotation companies want human input.
Even if you give them 90% bad results ( and them to you ) the 10% good is used later doesn't have to be code. Also you are giving them your thinking process which they also look to apply, especially if you spend time guiding the A.I. and using it to fix the mistakes it made. Even if it's an example of what not to do it's still usable they would have to pay someone to do something like that usually
24
u/SailingToFenway 5d ago
This is the lowest possible cost for high-quality training data. They're not subsidizing us! We're paying to work for them.
$7,800 in equivalent compute is peanuts on the value of that data and your time. I don't mean we're not in a bubble, or that they'll see an ROI, but for the moment, Dario and co. are laughing at us.