Live data from Hacker News

Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8, and Anthropic's (Potential) Unravelling

emergingtrajectories.com

161–170 of 349 posts

Re: Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8, and Anthropic's (Potential) Unravelling

#161
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

6x. Taalas has Llama3.1 8B running at 18000 tok/s. Cerebras advertised that model at 3000 tok/s.

Interesting. Is the speedup from specializing for the shape of Llama 3.1 or are they (contra my mental model) actually winning on burning in the weights?

The weights are in SRAM, so the LLM architecture is burned in but the weights can be updated.

Re: Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8, and Anthropic's (Potential) Unravelling

#162
post #113
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For one, on the margin people are willing to pay a lot for slightly better models. I know personally the value the LLM adds to my workflow is considerably more than the $200/m I pay the frontier labs. I have no interest in optimizing that to get it slightly lower. There are a very vocal minority that optimizes this or companies whose LLM expense is marginal, but I think that's the minority (correct me if I'm wrong,…

> Claude and OAI are not valued at $1T because of their harnesses They're valued at that because they add a lot of value and people pay for the product. The product is more than the LLM. If you want argue the value of the harness vs LLM but flippant remark adds nothing. > Enterprise excel is like $50 a month, the closed source labs charge orders of magnitude more than that per user per month for enterprise, and want…

I'd imagine it has to be immense. Most of the engineers I know are spending $200/day, let's say 20 workdays per month, $4000/mo. Whatever % of revenue it is, it's got to be close to 100% of profit.

Re: Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8, and Anthropic's (Potential) Unravelling

#166

The open weight, open architecture releases of the past several days has me more convinced that ultimately, the winner will be whoever burns their models to ASICs fastest. The LLMs themselves are capable of doing some aspects of chip design as evinced by the K3 press release. Furthermore, the frontier models are "good enough" for a wide swathe of tasks and will soon hit that threshold for a good amount of software en…

[dead]

Re: Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8, and Anthropic's (Potential) Unravelling

#167
post #87
post #2

> More importantly, as sustainable long-term businesses, model-only providers are particularly at risk. Knowledge Atlas, Moonshot Labs, and Anthropic face defensibility challenges versus OpenAI, Alibaba, SpaceX, Meta, and Google. Hm. How is OpenAI not a “model-only” provider just like Anthropic? Seems like they are vulnerable in the same way.

ChatGPT is synonymous with non technical/work related LLMs. They're amassing a ton of user history. That history improves the product for the user because it has more context into the person. They can feed it back into model improvements and for advertising. You can see a future where a user types in "plan a vacation for me" and ChatGPT coordinates everything from there. Those sorts of users aren't going to switch be…

I see a future where lots of models can plan a vacation for me, not just ChatGPT. Saying that there is brand equity in the ChatGPT brand feels a lot like saying there’s a brand equity in the MySpace and AOL 25 years ago. Google in particular, via Android and its relationship with Apple to power Siri, has a much better shot at grabbing the “plan a vacation for me” consumer market, IMO.

I could easily see OpenAI become irrelevant in 2 years if they stumble at all and don’t keep up with the other frontier models.

Re: Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8, and Anthropic's (Potential) Unravelling

#168
post #134

The open weight, open architecture releases of the past several days has me more convinced that ultimately, the winner will be whoever burns their models to ASICs fastest. The LLMs themselves are capable of doing some aspects of chip design as evinced by the K3 press release. Furthermore, the frontier models are "good enough" for a wide swathe of tasks and will soon hit that threshold for a good amount of software en…

A Fable 5 model running at 9,000 tokens/s on an ASIC rather than 150 tokens/s on electricity chugging Nvidia GPUs, or even giant SRAM Cerebras or Groq chips could be good enough to meet the majority of demand. 640K ought to be enough for anybody.

Agreed 100%. This guy thinks there's a limit on the demand for intelligence. You think that Fable 7 which can run a billion dollar corporation on its own has no consumer demand just because we have fable 5 at 9k tok/s? Who do you think will be the biggest customer of such a model? Fable 7, obviously.

Re: Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8, and Anthropic's (Potential) Unravelling

#169

The open weight, open architecture releases of the past several days has me more convinced that ultimately, the winner will be whoever burns their models to ASICs fastest. The LLMs themselves are capable of doing some aspects of chip design as evinced by the K3 press release. Furthermore, the frontier models are "good enough" for a wide swathe of tasks and will soon hit that threshold for a good amount of software en…

While running the model at 9000 tokens/s is the more flashy demo, I imagine running 1000 concurrent requests at 150 tokens/s each is the much more achievable goal

At 9000 tokens/s you could interleave a lot of requests so long as pre-fill is also fast. It really depends on how much you need to keep sessions open to take advantage of KV caching

Re: Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8, and Anthropic's (Potential) Unravelling

#170

The open weight, open architecture releases of the past several days has me more convinced that ultimately, the winner will be whoever burns their models to ASICs fastest. The LLMs themselves are capable of doing some aspects of chip design as evinced by the K3 press release. Furthermore, the frontier models are "good enough" for a wide swathe of tasks and will soon hit that threshold for a good amount of software en…

I'm not convinced, mostly because things like crypto, which I believe went into ASICs, were based on very slowly moving and mostly understood algorithms. LLMs and model architectures seems significantly more volatile. I wouldn't want to be working out the finer details of my chip rollout only to find a new paper/approach that give multiples of performance. So I guess it depends on how much the latest-greatest model m…

The churn is an issue. For a while there, it felt like we were getting a new number format every month or two (e.g., fp4, ternary, etc.). That level of innovation works against moving things into hardware, or at least you need to be willing to spin hardware constantly.
Post reply on HN