> allowing Sol Ultrafast to accelerate your most time-sensitive, mission-critical work Curious, what are some of the use cases?
Accelerating GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast
31–40 of 295 posts
Re: Accelerating GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast
#32This 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…
Maybe then LLM's will switch to outputting raw machine code?
printf("Hello, world");
vs. a plausible illustration of how it might be compiled down to machine code... 48 65 6C 6C 6F 2C 20 77 6F 72 6C 64
48 83 EC 28
48 8D 0D F5 0F 00 00
E8 F0 00 00 00
33 C0
48 83 C4 28
C3
The latter now takes up 10x as many tokens (= 10x the cost/time, + context penalties), and is now architecture-specific, impossible to apply non-brittle program-wide optimizations to, etc. There is absolutely zero reason to ever have the LLM act as a compiler no matter how fast it is. Even if you believe LLMs will reach a state where they can actually generate good code at this level, you would be better off having them generate the compiler they would use.Re: Accelerating GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast
#33This 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…
Maybe then LLM's will switch to outputting raw machine code?
Re: Accelerating GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast
#34This 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
#35Re: Accelerating GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast
#36This 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…
I think it's pretty obvious that, in that world, the AIs will simply be tasked with making the compilers faster. It's already happening with their own stack, after all.
Re: Accelerating GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast
#37Earlier 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.
Batching works because of severe memory bottleneck, but Cerebras whole thing is serving models out of "L1 cache" (?).
Re: Accelerating GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast
#38Unless I have read over it, besides the animation in the intelligence vs speed graph which only mentions internal data and not whether they truly reran the AA suite, there is no actually solid statement on the important aspect of performance. Neither 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 (rightfull…
Re: Accelerating GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's pretty obvious that, in that world, the AIs will simply be tasked with making the compilers faster. It's already happening with their own stack, after all.
Speed is independent of quality. LLMs are currently completely incapable of producing a good compiler. I'm not convinced that's going to change (and if it does change, we're all unemployed).
Re: Accelerating GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast
#40> 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…
What do you need speed for? That's a genuine question, I feel like the limiting factor already is my creativity, attention span and budget. And I'm not even yet optimizing cost by batching things like review to slow local models over night, or schedule tasks to take full advantage of my subscriptions.
It also spent almost 800k tokens on these lines…