251–260 of 495 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean by collision?
If multiple cores tries to get the same memory addresses, the MMU feeds only one core, the second one have to whait. Depends on the type of RAM, this will cost a lot of cycles. GPU MMUs can handle multiple line in parallel. But not 10k cores at the same time. The HBM is not able to transfer 3.5TByte sequencial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cheapest provider in your link charges 460x more for input tokens than the article estimates.
> The cheapest provider in your link charges 460x more for input tokens than the article estimates. The article estinates $0.003 per million input tokens, the cheapest on the list is $0.46 per million. The ratio is 120×, not 460×. OTOH, all of the providers are far below the estimated $3.08 cost per million output tokens
https://www.axios.com/2025/08/15/sam-altman-gpt5-launch-chat... quotes Sam Altman saying: > Most of what we're building out at this point is the inference [...] We're profitable on inference. If we didn't pay for training, we'd be a very profitable company.
ICYMI, Amodei said the same in much greater detail: "If you consider each model to be a company, the model that was trained in 2023 was profitable. You paid $100 million, and then it made $200 million of revenue. There's some cost to inference with the model, but let's just assume, in this cartoonish cartoon example, that even if you add those two up, you're kind of in a good state. So, if every model was a company,…
https://www.axios.com/2025/08/15/sam-altman-gpt5-launch-chat... quotes Sam Altman saying: > Most of what we're building out at this point is the inference [...] We're profitable on inference. If we didn't pay for training, we'd be a very profitable company.
This can be technically true without being actually true. IE OpenAI invests in Cursor/Windsurf/Startups that give away credits to users and make heavy use of inference API. Money flows back to OpenAI then OpenAI sends it back to those companies via credits/investment $. It's even more circular in this case because nvidia is also funding companies that generate significant inference. It'll be quite difficult to figure…
OpenAI's fund is ~$250-300mm Nvidia reportedly invested $1b last year - still way less than Open AI revenue
https://www.axios.com/2025/08/15/sam-altman-gpt5-launch-chat... quotes Sam Altman saying: > Most of what we're building out at this point is the inference [...] We're profitable on inference. If we didn't pay for training, we'd be a very profitable company.
This can be technically true without being actually true. IE OpenAI invests in Cursor/Windsurf/Startups that give away credits to users and make heavy use of inference API. Money flows back to OpenAI then OpenAI sends it back to those companies via credits/investment $. It's even more circular in this case because nvidia is also funding companies that generate significant inference. It'll be quite difficult to figure…
https://www.axios.com/2025/08/15/sam-altman-gpt5-launch-chat... quotes Sam Altman saying: > Most of what we're building out at this point is the inference [...] We're profitable on inference. If we didn't pay for training, we'd be a very profitable company.
ICYMI, Amodei said the same in much greater detail: "If you consider each model to be a company, the model that was trained in 2023 was profitable. You paid $100 million, and then it made $200 million of revenue. There's some cost to inference with the model, but let's just assume, in this cartoonish cartoon example, that even if you add those two up, you're kind of in a good state. So, if every model was a company,…
In other words, its possible this story is correct and true for Anthropic, but not true for OpenAI.
From https://www.theverge.com/command-line-newsletter/759897/sam-... , Sam Altman said: > “If we didn’t pay for training, we’d be a very profitable company.”
Exactly. All of the claims that OpenAI is losing money on every request are wrong. OpenAI hasn’t even unlocked all of their possible revenue opportunities from the free tier such as ads (like Google search), affiliate links, and other services. There’s also a lot of comments in this thread who want LLM companies to fail for different reasons, so they’re projecting that wish on to imagined unit economics. I’m having f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the point isn't to argue AI companies are money printers or even that they're fairly valued, it's that at least the unit economics work out. Contrast this to something like moviepass, where they were actually losing money on each subscriber. Sure, a company that requires huge capital investments that might never be paid back isn't great either, but at least it's better than moviepass.
Unit economics needs to include the cost of the thing being sold, not just the direct cost of selling it. Unit economics is mostly a manufacturing concept and the only reason it looks OK here is because of not really factoring in the cost of building the thing into the cost of the thing. Someone might say I don’t understand “unit economics” but I’d simply argue applying a unit economics argument saying it’s good with…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If multiple cores tries to get the same memory addresses, the MMU feeds only one core, the second one have to whait. Depends on the type of RAM, this will cost a lot of cycles. GPU MMUs can handle multiple line in parallel. But not 10k cores at the same time. The HBM is not able to transfer 3.5TByte sequencial.
Why is that? It seems like multiple cores requesting the same address would be easier for the MMU to fetch for, not harder.
These articles (of which there are many) all make the same basic accounting mistakes. You have to include all the costs associated with the model, not just inference compute. This article is like saying an apartment complex isn’t “losing money” because the monthly rents cover operating costs but ignoring the cost of the building. Most real estate developments go bust because the developers can’t pay the mortgage paym…
It’s funny you mention apartments, because that is exactly the comparison i thought of, but with the opposite conclusion. If you buy an apartment with debt, but get positive cash flow from rent, you wouldn’t call that unprofitable or a bad investment. It takes X years to recoup the initial debt, and as long as X is achievable that’s a good deal. Hoping for something net profitable including fixed costs from day 1 is…