cloud service managers

Abstract: AI compute is becoming large and fast-changing electrical loads. Its impacts on data center infrastructure and power grids depend not only on total energy consumption, but also on how their power draw moves over sub-second to minute timescales, including peaks, ramps, and synchronized fluctuations across accelerators. Existing energy benchmarks for large language models (LLMs) report aggregate quantities such as joules per token and rarely release the underlying time-series measurements, leaving these power dynamics poorly characterized and difficult to model. We introduce LLM-PowerTrace, an open dataset of time-resolved, per-GPU power traces for LLM fine-tuning and inference, sampled every 100\,ms on varying NVIDIA platforms paired with complete workload and system metadata. For fine-tuning, LLM-PowerTrace profiles open model families spanning a wide range of model sizes and fine-tuning methods, together with controlled sweeps over batch size, sequence length, precision, parallelism, and checkpointing. For inference, it covers variations in concurrency, GPU frequency, KV-cache and weight quantization, prompt and output lengths, and request-arrival patterns. LLM-PowerTrace profiles a set of open model families across a wide range of model sizes, and controlled sweeps over batch size, sequence length, precision, parallelism, and checkpointing for fine-tuning, and it sweeps concurrency, GPU frequency, KV cache and weight quantization, prompt and output lengths, and request arrival patterns for inference. Built upon power traces, we define power-grid-facing metrics as well as AI-compute power\&energy scaling law for extrapolating beyond the measured settings. Together, LLM-PowerTrace provides a dataset foundation for modeling, forecasting, and managing the fast-changing electrical behavior of AI compute.

Abstract: Most debate about releasing capable AI systems treats the choice as binary: keep the model behind an API, or publish the weights. That framing runs together two separate decisions. One is how capable a system may become. The other is who may obtain a given capability, and on what terms. This paper is about the second decision. We propose a Multi-Tiered AI Accessibility Model (MAIAM) that sorts access by purpose, safety, and capability instead of by release artifact. Tier 1, AI for Learning, is broadly accessible and deliberately capability-bounded. Tier 2, AI for Exploration, serves research and development under registration, identity, and usage controls that tighten as capability rises. Tier 3, Full-Scale Frontier AI, is available only through structured, recorded, and accountable access. The principle behind the tiers is that accessibility should be proportional to capability, safety, and risk. We show why publishing frontier-class weights forfeits every safety lever a developer has after release, and, using evidence that safety fine-tuning can be stripped from open weights for a few hundred dollars, why an evaluation of the base model says little about its derivatives. We give criteria for assigning a system to a tier along capability, autonomy, domain-consequence, and usage/safety axes, and combine MAIAM with the SAFE AI Operating Point into a two-part framework: a Capability Boundary that fixes the safety limits not to be crossed, and an Accessibility Boundary that fixes who may obtain a capability below that limit. Capability limits alone do not make AI safe; a tiered access regime administered by regulating bodies is also needed.