Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Echo – Fable-level results at 1/3 the cost using open-weight models

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 254 posts

Re: Show HN: Echo – Fable-level results at 1/3 the cost using open-weight models

#101

Post by rodrodrod »

killingtime74 wrote: post #90
cheema33 wrote: post #80

> Fable-level results at 1/3 the cost I am guessing this is not targeting those of us on the heavily subsidized $200/mo plans. Sure, these plans may be temporary, but none of us really know how temporary they are. Until then, 1/3rd of the published API pricing is not very appealing.

All enterprises users (people using them for work and not side projects) can't get the subsidized plans. I would say subsidized plans are a minority of usage?

People _can_ get subsidized plans for work: we use Claude Teams, $100/mo premium seat, which caps at 150 seats. Not enterprise tier, but fine for SMBs.

Re: Show HN: Echo – Fable-level results at 1/3 the cost using open-weight models

#102

Post by throw10920 »

vunderba wrote: post #65
codekansas wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's basically trying to replicate OpenRouter, which works pretty well and has a lot of nice features to abstract away any single provider, such as failover, metering, autoswitching, etc. It's actually a really smart infrastructure abstraction. I just wish this were solving an actual problem rather than being a fairly transparent attempt to say something approximating, "Hey VCs, OpenRouter just became a unicorn but I…

It feels a bit more like Fugu to me, which acts as a multi-LLM orchestrator (though I think Fugu combines open- and closed-weight models), but without being able to see the “secret sauce” behind how any of them decides the number of "plies" each model in the swarm gets, they all feel rather difficult to compare beyond the big public benchmarks... https://github.com/SakanaAI/fugu

Isn't Fugu the same kind of thing as NotDiamond[1] (which I believe OpenRouter uses) except not as good?

[1] https://www.notdiamond.ai/

Re: Show HN: Echo – Fable-level results at 1/3 the cost using open-weight models

#103

Post by vunderba »

throw10920 wrote: post #102
vunderba wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels a bit more like Fugu to me, which acts as a multi-LLM orchestrator (though I think Fugu combines open- and closed-weight models), but without being able to see the “secret sauce” behind how any of them decides the number of "plies" each model in the swarm gets, they all feel rather difficult to compare beyond the big public benchmarks... https://github.com/SakanaAI/fugu

Isn't Fugu the same kind of thing as NotDiamond[1] (which I believe OpenRouter uses) except not as good? [1] https://www.notdiamond.ai/

Honestly not sure. I think Fugu tries to leverage multiple models simultaneously where something like NotDiamond is more about picking the most optimal singular model.

This space is so crowded it feels like I see a new "model router" pop up every few weeks.

Re: Show HN: Echo – Fable-level results at 1/3 the cost using open-weight models

#104

Post by monk_grilla »

killingtime74 wrote: post #90
cheema33 wrote: post #80

> Fable-level results at 1/3 the cost I am guessing this is not targeting those of us on the heavily subsidized $200/mo plans. Sure, these plans may be temporary, but none of us really know how temporary they are. Until then, 1/3rd of the published API pricing is not very appealing.

All enterprises users (people using them for work and not side projects) can't get the subsidized plans. I would say subsidized plans are a minority of usage?

I imagine that most small to medium sized businesses are on either individual plans or Teams plans. The vast majority of firms do not need more than 150 seats, and API rates are not sustainable for most.

Re: Show HN: Echo – Fable-level results at 1/3 the cost using open-weight models

#105

Post by monk_grilla »

adam_rida wrote: post #15
kamranjon wrote: post #2

No benchmarks, no info on which models are used, ai generated video, just a signup page with nothing else. Anyhow, this kinda reminds me of that quote about architecture: "We replaced our monolith with micro services so that every outage could be more like a murder mystery."

The evaluator is public here: https://echo.tracerml.ai/eval/ It currently exposes 907 stored rows across seven benchmark families, with prompts, outputs, grades, and cost records. More benchmarks are coming soon. Echo does not disclose its per-request routing decision because that policy is the product. We can, however, publish some of the eligible open-weight model pool, version dates, aggregate allocation mix, and…

> Echo does not disclose its per-request routing decision because that policy is the product

I have not had need for a router product thus far so excuse my ignorance if this is standard, but how could I possibly use and improve a product built on a router like this if I am not permitted to see which model served my request? If I got a bad answer back in my LLM-powered app, do I really have no way of knowing which model was responsible?

Re: Show HN: Echo – Fable-level results at 1/3 the cost using open-weight models

#106

Post by Art9681 »

The "ensemble of models" is nothing new. It's just that it's not really a moat that can be monetized. In the end you're always paying for something. You can engineer an elaborate harness with multiple models but it is not going to particularly solve a novel problem that the frontier models can with the same level of efficiency. You're saving money and paying with time. You're going to pay with something one way or another no matter what.

The frontier providers aren't dumb. They charge what they charge because they know this. If you think Fable is too expensive then the type of problems you are solving don't demand that level of capability.

If you are working on something cutting edge, something truly novel, the cost of frontier AI is well worth its price.

With all that being said. No one is going to complain if we can get the same capability at a lower cost. And I mean true parity. Not trading space for time.

Re: Show HN: Echo – Fable-level results at 1/3 the cost using open-weight models

#108

Post by ljlolel »

dluan wrote: post #39

So this is the dogpile.com of the askjeeves, alta vista, and lycos approach? Time is a flat circle?

ensemble models always did the best at Kaggle

we did the same: https://trustedrouter.com/blog/prometheus-2-new-draco-state-...

Re: Show HN: Echo – Fable-level results at 1/3 the cost using open-weight models

#109

Post by zachdotai »

hmokiguess wrote: post #45

"Backed by YCombinator" https://www.ycombinator.com/companies?query=tracerml I don't see it?

Not all YC companies have launched publicly yet but I am a current YC founder and I can confirm they exist in the internal directory.
Post reply on HN