超越 GPU 租赁,Prime Intellect 如何让去中心化 AI 训练成为可能

比推Published on 2024-08-16Last updated on 2024-08-16

通过开发切实可行的分布式 AI 训练框架,Prime Intellect 激活了去中心化 GPU 算力市场的潜力。

原文标题:《Prime Intellect: Making Magic to Scale AI Training》

撰文:Teng Yan

编译:思维怪怪

译者注:随着英伟达市值在年中突破 3 万亿美元,GPU 算力租赁成为 2024 年加密 AI 领域最热门的赛道。然而,大多数项目仅停留在算力资源聚合阶段,未能解决去中心化 AI 训练的核心难题——跨分布式 GPU 集群的模型训练。新锐项目 Prime Intellect 正试图打破这一瓶颈。加密研究员 Teng Yan 撰文探讨了 Prime Intellect 的创新方案,以及它如何有望引领去中心化 AI 训练的未来。

大多数 GPU 市场平平无奇,往往只是重复相同的产品体验,仅通过添加一个代币来补贴成本。

但去中心化 AI 训练则是一个全新的游戏,具有变革性潜力。Prime Intellect 正在为大规模去中心化 AI 训练构建关键基础设施。

以下是他们超越普通 DePIN 项目的原因:

Prime Intellect 的宏伟蓝图包含四个部分:

1. 整合全球算力资源

2. 开发用于协作模型开发的分布式训练框架

3. 协作训练开源 AI 模型

4. 实现 AI 模型的集体所有权

GPU 市场聚合器

7 月 1 日,他们通过推出 GPU 市场启动了第一阶段。该市场整合了主要中心化和去中心化 GPU 供应商的算力资源,包括 Akash Network、io.net、Vast.ai、Lambda Cloud 等。目标是通过聚合供应商资源并提供便捷工具,为用户提供最优惠的租赁价格。用户可以直接使用 Prime Intellect 平台,无需再逐一访问 Akash 或 io.net 进行比价。

他们的在线测试平台直观且易于使用。用户几分钟内就能启动集群,无需 KYC。你可以选择希望租赁 GPU 的位置和网络的安全级别(如安全云或社区云),此外还有一个「最低价」选项。

从顶级 H100 到 RTX3000 和 4000 系列,他们提供多种 GPU 选择。目前集群规模上限为 8 个 GPU,Prime Intellect 正努力将其扩大到 16-128 个。

大规模去中心化训练

他们蓝图的第二部分——开发分布式 AI 训练框架,最令人瞩目。

目前的情况是:训练大型基础 AI 模型通常需要自建数据中心。这涉及高速网络、定制数据存储、隐私保护和效率优化,这些仅靠租用多个 GPU 难以实现。所以微软、谷歌和 OpenAI 等巨头主导了这一领域毫不奇怪,小型玩家缺乏必要的资源。

而 Prime Intellect 将实现跨多个分布式 GPU 集群的模型训练。

去中心化训练面临多重挑战:

  • 优化全球节点间的通信延迟和带宽

  • 适应这些网络中不同类型的 GPU

  • 容错能力:训练过程必须能适应 GPU 集群可用性的变化,因为这些集群可能会随时加入或退出

这需要将前沿研究转化为实际生产系统:

  • 分布式低通信训练(DiLoCo):一种在连接不良的设备上进行数据并行训练的方法,每 500 步同步一次梯度,而非每步同步。

  • Prime Intellect 最近开源了支持全球分布式 GPU 协作模型开发的框架,任何人都可使用该代码。

  • 他们重现了谷歌 DeepMind 的 DiLoCo 实验,在横跨 3 国的情况下训练模型,计算利用率达 90-95%。他们还将规模扩大至原始工作的 3 倍,展示了其在十亿参数模型上的有效性。

如果 Prime Intellect 能解决这些问题,将极大影响模型训练方式和资源利用效率。

Prime Intellect 正在开发的最后一项功能是一个协议,用于奖励贡献算力、代码和资金的参与者,并实现 AI 模型的集体治理。这契合去中心化 AI 理念,鼓励用户参与其中。预计他们可能会使用加密货币作为交易和所有权媒介。

我的看法

  • 当前 GPU 市场同质化严重,缺乏吸引力。尽管一些市场通过代币激励聚集了供应,但由于去中心化训练的挑战,需求端仍然疲软。

  • 全球去中心化 GPU 市场竞争激烈。(以下是几个 GPU 提供商的价格比较:)

  • 如果 Prime Intellect 能提高去中心化 AI 训练的效率,将为 GPU 需求打开大门。

  • Prime Intellect 拥有知名投资者支持,如 Clem Delangue(Hugging Face 联创兼 CEO)、Erik Voorhees(Shapeshift 创始人兼 CEO)和 Andrew Kang(Mechanism Capital 联创兼合伙人)。

说明: 比推所有文章只代表作者观点,不构成投资建议

Trending Cryptos

Related Reads

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Largest Bull Suffers $15 Billion Paper Loss

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Major Bull Loses $15 Billion On June 25th, Bitcoin fell below $60,000, hitting a low of $58,030—its lowest level since October 2024. The sell-off triggered over $1 billion in leveraged liquidations in 24 hours, with longs accounting for $788 million. This marks a more than 53% decline from the October 2025 all-time high of $126,198. A critical factor in the downturn is the weakening position of MicroStrategy, the largest corporate Bitcoin holder. With 847,363 BTC at an average cost of $75,651, the company now faces over $14.6 billion in unrealized losses. Its core financing flywheel—raising capital to buy Bitcoin—is stalling. Its variable-rate preferred shares (STRC), a key fundraising tool, have fallen 25% below their $100 target. This raises doubts about its ability to continue providing steady institutional demand for Bitcoin. Simultaneously, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs are experiencing significant outflows, with a single-day net outflow of $469 million on June 24th. This represents the most severe sustained capital flight since their launch. The macroeconomic backdrop remains restrictive, with persistent inflation delaying expected Fed rate cuts. Analysts note a shift in capital allocation, with institutional funds moving away from crypto towards AI infrastructure stocks. Immediate pressure comes from approximately $10 billion worth of Bitcoin options expiring on June 26th, which could increase market volatility. The combined effect of these factors—eroding core demand pillars, macro headwinds, and capital rotation—has decisively broken the $60,000 support level.

Foresight News5m ago

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Largest Bull Suffers $15 Billion Paper Loss

Foresight News5m ago

STRC Falls Below $80, Can Conservative Investors Still Buy the Dip?

The article analyzes whether the STRC (a perpetual preferred stock issued by MicroStrategy) presents a buying opportunity after its price fell below its $100 par value to around $80, offering a seemingly high yield of 13-15%. The core argument is that STRC's discount reflects market skepticism about the sustainability of MicroStrategy's capital structure model, not just temporary panic. This model relies on issuing securities (like STRC) to raise funds to buy more Bitcoin, a "flywheel" that works in a bull market. The recent small sale of BTC to fund dividends, while minor, broke the psychological "never sell" anchor and signaled potential strain. Key risks identified are not a traditional Ponzi collapse but a potential breakdown in the financing narrative: 1) If Bitcoin enters a deep bear market, crushing MicroStrategy's stock premium (mNAV), its ability to raise cheap capital weakens. 2) If STRC remains deeply discounted, it signifies permanently higher funding costs. 3) The high cash dividend yield represents a significant ongoing expense. 4) If selling BTC to pay dividends becomes routine, the bullish narrative reverses. The conclusion is that STRC is not a risk-free high-yield asset. It is a high-coupon bet on whether MicroStrategy's BTC treasury financing model can withstand a bear market. Buying it is a wager that the market will continue to believe in and fund this structure at acceptable costs. The current price asks if this cycle's "casualty" might be a BTC treasury company's融资 model itself.

marsbit21m ago

STRC Falls Below $80, Can Conservative Investors Still Buy the Dip?

marsbit21m ago

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

**Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Names?** In the crypto world, changing a project's name is common—over 16% of projects have done so, including major ones like Polygon (formerly Matic Network). This contrasts sharply with traditional businesses, which fiercely protect brand equity. The core reason is that in crypto, brand loyalty is often weak. Users are frequently investors, airdrop hunters, or yield seekers, not traditional consumers. A name associated with price crashes, hacks, or failed narratives becomes a liability, not an asset. Renaming can be a strategic reset to shed this baggage. Name changes serve as a potent marketing tool. They can signal a genuine pivot in strategy or scope (e.g., EthSign dropping "Eth" as it expanded). However, they are often used to "narrative surf," rebranding to align with hot trends like AI, RWA, or the metaverse (e.g., Elrond → MultiversX). Critically, renaming is also a PR tactic to distance a project from past failures like security breaches (e.g., Anyswap → Multichain). The most significant risk emerges when a name change is coupled with a token migration or swap. This process can allow projects to reset exchange price charts, erase visible historical downtrends, and create an illusion of a fresh start. It often facilitates liquidity resets, where low float can be exploited for pumps. More alarmingly, migrations sometimes mask overhauls to tokenomics, introducing substantial new token supply through "ecosystem funds" or "node rewards," effectively diluting existing holders. The fundamental issue isn't renaming itself, which can be valid for strategic evolution. The problem is when it functions as an escape from history—a way to avoid accountability for past mistakes, failed promises, and poor performance. When a project announces a rebrand, the critical questions are: What tangible new capability or strategy does it represent? Has the tokenomics changed? And what part of its past is it most trying to make users forget?

marsbit27m ago

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

marsbit27m ago

A Trillion-Dollar Entry Point for Pension Funds? Franklin's Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETFs Come with a Built-In Selling Pressure Ceiling

Franklin Templeton filed for two ETFs on June 18 that embed a "default option" logic into Bitcoin investing. These funds—the Franklin US Equity Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Index ETF and the Franklin US Innovative Equity Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Index ETF—aim to automatically allocate a portion of investor dividends to Bitcoin, initially with a 95% stock and 5% Bitcoin allocation. The mechanism is designed for financial advisors, not retail investors. By packaging Bitcoin exposure within a standard equity fund label, advisors can bypass internal compliance restrictions against direct cryptocurrency allocation for their clients. Dividends from the stock holdings are automatically used to buy Bitcoin via spot ETFs, futures, or options. However, the structure imposes strict rebalancing rules: if Bitcoin's allocation exceeds 5%, it is trimmed back to 4.5% quarterly, with a hard cap of 20%. This means the fund becomes a systematic seller during Bitcoin price rallies. Realistically, the potential buying pressure is minimal. Based on dividend yields (approximately 1.05% for broad market, 0.52% for innovative equity), the annual inflow into Bitcoin would be a tiny fraction of the fund's assets. For comparison, Franklin's existing Bitcoin ETF ($359 million AUM) would generate only about $3.6 million in annual Bitcoin purchases—negligible against Bitcoin's daily trading volume. The innovative equity fund, heavily weighted in low-dividend stocks like Nvidia, would have even weaker buying power. The product utilizes an offshore Cayman subsidiary to hold Bitcoin, a common compliance tactic for commodity exposure in mutual funds. A key drawback for investors is the tax liability: they must pay taxes on dividends that are automatically converted into Bitcoin, requiring out-of-pocket cash for a gain they never directly receive. For the strategy to scale significantly, such funds would need to become a default or near-default option in retirement plans like 401(k)s. Recent regulatory moves, including a Trump executive order and a Department of Labor proposal offering fiduciary safe harbors for including crypto assets, could pave the way. However, widespread employer adoption likely awaits further legal clarity. Ultimately, the fund's model leverages investor inertia and automated systems, rather than convincing anyone to actively choose Bitcoin. While it creates a new, albeit small, structural buyer, its rebalancing rules also establish a built-in "selling ceiling" that could dampen price upside if similar products proliferate.

Foresight News29m ago

A Trillion-Dollar Entry Point for Pension Funds? Franklin's Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETFs Come with a Built-In Selling Pressure Ceiling

Foresight News29m ago

Why Do Crypto Projects Always Love Changing Names?

This article explores why cryptocurrency projects frequently change their names, a practice uncommon in traditional businesses where brand equity is a core asset. Over 16% of crypto projects have reportedly rebranded, often for strategic, marketing, or defensive reasons. The primary explanation is the weak user loyalty in crypto; many users are investors, airdrop hunters, or narrative traders, not traditional consumers. When a project's token price falls, its narrative fades, or it faces scandals/hacks, its old name becomes a liability laden with negative history rather than brand value. Therefore, frequent rebranding aims to shed this historical baggage. Name changes can be a marketing strategy to align with new business directions (e.g., Matic to Polygon), capitalize on trending narratives (e.g., adding "AI" or "Multiverse"), or distance from past failures like security breaches (e.g., Anyswap to Multichain). However, the most concerning aspect often involves a simultaneous token migration or swap. This process can serve as a "liquidity reset": it wipes historical price charts, potentially eases market manipulation, and is sometimes used to introduce new tokenomics that dilute existing holders' value through hidden inflation. The article concludes that while legitimate strategic pivots can justify a rebrand, many crypto name changes are less about building a new future and more about escaping the past—erasing bad memories, failed narratives, and dissatisfied communities. The key questions for any rebranding project are: what genuine new value or strategy does it bring, how has the tokenomics changed, and what part of its history is it trying to make users forget?

链捕手36m ago

Why Do Crypto Projects Always Love Changing Names?

链捕手36m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of AI (AI) are presented below.

活动图片