russell@unturf.com
211bbb1daf
Main tweet + follow-up (Merkle cache hit skips GPU, doesn't increment the per-1k). Numbers are the measured claim_lattice figures from the energy report; note attached to hold the arbitrage/forcing-function framing until the value side is hardened (higher N + blinded judge).
35 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
35 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
# COGS tweet — cost of a grounded answer (arborist)
|
||
|
||
Draft social post. Numbers are the measured claim_lattice figures from
|
||
`docs/energy-cogs-benchmark.md` (n=30, $0.33/kWh, real GPUs: Hermes-8B on
|
||
a 3090, Qwen-27B on a 4090). Hold the bigger "arbitrage / forcing
|
||
function" framing until the value side is hardened (higher N + blinded
|
||
SOTA judge) — see that report's §5.5 + §9.
|
||
|
||
## Main tweet
|
||
|
||
What does a *grounded* answer actually cost in GPU electricity? We
|
||
measured it on real cards:
|
||
|
||
- arborist + Hermes-3-8B → **~9¢ per 1,000 answers**
|
||
- arborist + Qwen-27B → **~16¢ per 1,000**
|
||
|
||
No reasoning chains (those burn 4–6×). Read the evidence cheap, write a
|
||
short answer locked to a claim lattice, stop.
|
||
|
||
## Follow-up
|
||
|
||
And if an answer's already hot, it never even joins that 1,000 — it's a
|
||
Merkle-bound cache hit that skips the GPU entirely. Zero joules, zero
|
||
cents. You pay GPU only for *new* questions; the cached answers are free
|
||
forever, and provably the same answer.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
**Source numbers (claim_lattice, $0.33/kWh):**
|
||
- Hermes-3-8B + substrate: $0.085 / 1,000 grounded answers (~9¢)
|
||
- Qwen-27B + substrate: $0.158 / 1,000 (~16¢)
|
||
- quote mode is cheaper (Hermes $0.070, Qwen $0.121) — less context prefilled
|
||
- thinking/reasoning mode measured 4–6× the energy for the same answer
|
||
- cache hit (Merkle-bound providence record) returns the answer with no
|
||
LLM call → 0 GPU joules, does not increment the per-1k cost
|