Curious, what are some of the use cases?
Accelerating GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast
21–30 of 295 posts
Re: Accelerating GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast
#22It is a bit outdated (scores ± 40% lower), but smart enough for a lot of coding tasks, and can cost under 1/10th of Sol.
Re: Accelerating GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast
#23This kills the crab. Compilation time will be a genuine bottleneck for slop coding if this becomes the standard generation rate over the next few years. Go, Zig or even C99 with TCC for dev builds, any language that can get you systems-level performance (or close to it) in a dev environment where you can iterate in ms rather than minutes is going to be immensely more appealing than generating a potential prototype in…
Re: Accelerating GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast
#24If it truly is only ~1-2T parameters, then this kinda kills 2 narratives for me.
1. all the handwringing about open source catching up via Kimi K3 (3T params) is complete nonsense. All that matters imo for determining which labs are leading is intelligence per parameter. Anyone with a enough compute can train a giant model, but being able to squeeze capabilities into smaller models gives you a massive inference and training edge.
2. Inference margins are clearly insane, and this explains why OpenAI was able to lower the price of Luna by 80%. Id guess that thing is probably 120b params based on the TPS they are serving it at.
Re: Accelerating GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast
#25My prediction is that, this time next year, top developers outside ai labs will be spending 50k USD+ on inference.
Within labs, I've heard spend is already far beyond this per developer.
Re: Accelerating GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast
#26> Compared with output speeds reported by Artificial Analysis GPT-5.6 Sol on Ultrafast mode runs 11x faster than Fable 5, and 5x faster than Opus 4.8 on Fast mode. Awesome work. I'm personally very excited for faster models/inference. I think speed is underrated to some degree in the current conversation. For a while, I was using Cursor's Composer quite a lot, even over frontier models, just because of how darn fast…
Re: Accelerating GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast
#27Neither the Cerebras or OpenAI post [0] outright state that this performs exactly the same as regular 5.6 Sol. I feel if this was 1:1 just Sol but much faster, they'd (rightfully) scream that off the rooftops. A line such as "this is the same performance, just faster, with no downsides" would go a long way in clarity and communication. Along with no pricing information, I'll hold out on further information.
Re: Accelerating GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast
#28Whoa. This looks both powerful and expensive. My prediction is that, this time next year, top developers outside ai labs will be spending 50k USD+ on inference. Within labs, I've heard spend is already far beyond this per developer.
Given sufficient budget and scope, I could certainly productively burn a half million dollars in tokens a year or more. I think that's where we're headed anyway, buying a 2nd or 5th claude max subscription feels slightly excessive for personal usage, but at a corporate level...
Re: Accelerating GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast
#29I'd just like to point out that the largest model Cerebras has ever served is Kimi K2.6 which is 1T parameters, so that either means that theyve had a breakthrough on the hardware engineering side of things, or GPT-5.6 Sol is likely a lot smaller than people think. If it truly is only ~1-2T parameters, then this kinda kills 2 narratives for me. 1. all the handwringing about open source catching up via Kimi K3 (3T par…
Re: Accelerating GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
The stake in the side of cerebras has always been that the economics are pretty poor. Who knows if they will subsidizes it to mitigate sticker shock, but it's a safe assumption that it will be scarily expensive. However if you are in a "cost is no obstacle, speed is god" position, it will likely be pure magic.
Can anyone explain why Cerberus needs to be _fast_ instead of _cheap_? I don't think I understand why they aren't leveraging the increased speed to do batching to serve more customers at a "normal" tok/s. Is the limitation, even on cerberus, still that the cache can only serve so many concurrent sessions over time? Is there no scaling advantage? I genuinely do not understand how any of this works.
Also worth looking into how they do cooling for it, because that's kind of absurd and awesome as well.