181–190 of 965 posts
Kellogg School of Business -- he said -- token as a commodity and therefore Open AI is constrained .. ha ha ha hee hee ha .. Well... you build a better mousetrap, and DeepSeek, K3, and ByteDance are just that -- just as good and fit to purpose -- What is needed is to build on top of -- not paniteir (invade privacy and kill people with the information) -- not USMC AI -- use PI's as overwatch killer drones -- but how c…
Is he casually assuming a singularity has already happened? A regular first-mover advantage I can understand, but those have been squandered or lost many times before.
> distillation: why exactly is it bad? After all, what are large language models but the distillation of all of the knowledge on the open Internet, scraped by the frontier labs and distilled into the models that are themselves being distilled? Who is exactly being wronged here? ... The U.S. should pass a law that (1) makes explicit that collecting data for training models is fair use, and (2) bars terms of service th…
Why would reading copyrighted material ever be an issue anyway? Wouldn't copyright law only apply to what you create and publish using the model? Training on every comic book should already be perfectly legal, as long as you accessed them legally, right? But publishing your own Batman comic using that training is copyright infringement. What I'm saying is, doesn't the law already cover 1?
In the US one of the factors is “ the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work”.
If anthropic Hoovers up the world’s books and trains on them, and then spits them out verbatim on command, then it will clearly impact the value of the work; nobody will buy the original, they’ll just ask Claude.
Others also argue that even if it’s not reproducing it exactly that the training runs afoul of that factor, specifically the “market for” portion. A rights holder can no longer license their book for training of LLMs if Anthropic goes ahead and just trains on it anyway.
Sure, any model that is not at the frontier can use the frontier model to generate synthetic high quality training data, so this can reduce significantly the training costs.
But at the scale of OpenAI, Anthropic and Google, it is quite likely that the (raw) training cost is very high anymore. Here's a few heuristics:
1. All the hyperscalers see a huge demand for inference. They can't deploy datacenters quickly enough to satiate all the demand they see. But, it's is impossible for the inference demand to be constant throughout a day or a week. If you use the times when the demand is lower than the peak demand (which is almost all the time) to dedicate the spare compute capacity to training, then your the cost of training compute is zero.
2. It is likely that increasingly a higher cost of the "training" is actually setting the guardrails, which is essentially post-training. As we've seen, without proper guardrails, the US Government won't allow you to serve inference. Anthropic was hit directly, but OpenAI delayed their 5.6 release as well to make sure the US Government is ok. This part of the training cost can't be reduced easily by using synthetic data generated by other models.
3. The frontier labs are also investing more and more in building an ecosystem around their models.
I am not a frontier lab insider, but take a look at the jobs posted on the Anthropic career page [1]. There are 74 jobs in "AI Research and Engineering" and by my count at most 15-20 are related to pure model training (of pre-training or RL type), and the rest are post-training, safety and security, alignment, interpretability, productivity and lots and lots of other things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The (quite excellent) article discusses several of your points. If you haven't read it, I recommend it. - Commodity market profitability is determined by marginal cost of production. LLMs have marginal cost; traditional software does not. - Models are not free. Downloading them is free. Running them is not. This has manufacturing economics, not software economics; the idea that they are "free" is an economic category…
" - The highest tier Chinese models are not more economical than US frontier models. Try GLM 5.2 and see how much it costs to do real work. I did, and it was more expensive than GPT 5.6." This is a flatly false statement for most things powering backend applications. The AI consumer "doing real work" model, either for analysis, chat, or coding could well be more cost effective with closed frontier models. But most of…
The labs are not interested in the small, fast, single purpose end of the market. Google increased their pricing on Flash so much that it stopped becoming a cheap model; instead, they released Gemma 4 open source, which is actually easier to use from a third-party inference provider than from Google.
From a total token volume perspective, these "utility" models (classifiers, simple summarizers, small OCR models) will absolutely drive enormous volumes of tokens, at low prices and margin and modest overall market size. Because the models are small and the performance requirements are modest, and because their use cases are specialized rather than general, there are poor economies of scale: they can run cost effectively on rented small GPUs, and a big player doesn't get a structural cost advantage. These models are usually 1b - 30b in size, and can run on a rented 5090. I've productized these myself: I run millions of pages through a fine tuned 1b OCR language model that runs on 5090s at a cost far lower than commercial providers.
But that's not the segment of the market where GLM 5.2, Kimi 3, etc., play. They compete with frontier capabilities, and they are not particularly cheaper than OpenAI models at a cost per task. (I do actually think they compete well with Anthropic, because Anthropic's model efficiencies are poor compared to OpenAI.) And although this part of the market may not be the bulk of the token volume, it is the bulk of the market value.
That's because a lot of human knowledge work is too generalized and fuzzy for dedicated, fine-tuned models, so they are almost entirely different markets that don't particularly compete with each other. (Though if SaaS companies successfully build around verticals that can use small models applied against well-defined jobs, there may be opportunity to push the small/big capability boundary to subsume marginally more valuable tasks that today would require mid-grade reasoning.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is value add in AI irrespective of how the data got to what it is. Literally the biggest thing of our generation - AI - is the living embodiment of that 'value add' writ large. 'What is the difference' - is the AI you use all day, in comparison to 'all the world's data' you can use for stuff and do 'whatever' with it, but are not likely to come up with something hugely useful otherwise. Maybe, not likely, if yo…
Okay, so if the chinese models are used everyday, do they become a value add? Like what's the line you're drawing here. Amount of value it creates?
Copying something is not.
Programming Microsoft Word is value add, copying the code is not.
Copying design ... there are some question marks there.
It's extremely easy to understand at it's core.
What makes it hard, is that faux intellectuals like to deconstruct ideas at the margins, and have those critiques stand in for reason.
"At sunrise the sun is only 'half there' ... there fore there is no 'day and night' just a blur! Day and night are the same thing!"
The training data used is part of all of this is a separate but related question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The (quite excellent) article discusses several of your points. If you haven't read it, I recommend it. - Commodity market profitability is determined by marginal cost of production. LLMs have marginal cost; traditional software does not. - Models are not free. Downloading them is free. Running them is not. This has manufacturing economics, not software economics; the idea that they are "free" is an economic category…
But this assumes Chinese models will not achieve token cost optimization. Intelligence needs are fairly flat for many tasks, and the Chinese models have caught up on this front. Next they achieve greater token cost efficiency and we don’t need OpenAI.
I appreciate the transparency in explicitly stating their motivation for writing the article (a response to what the author saw as an overreaction to Chinese models), but I feel the article goes too far the other direction, with multiple unsupported leaps of logic, and overstating the stickiness of AI client products.
The people who are most afraid of Chinese models are the VCs who poured into Anthropic and OpenAI at astronomically high valuations. Anthropic is valued at $1.2T and OpenAI is targeting $850B. These astronomical valuations were built on the premise that these labs would generate massive profits from premium API pricing, but the Chinese labs are completely undercutting this strategy by releasing excellent open models…