Live data from Hacker News

If this is true, the hyperscalers are toast

klementoninvesting.substack.com

31–40 of 108 posts

Re: If this is true, the hyperscalers are toast

#31
post #26

This logic seems mad. If people only need SLMs then hyperscalers can also centrally host higher-efficiency models, and still gain efficiencies of scale and convenience over hosting locally.

The logic seems mad to me because SLMs can simply not hold as much information as an LLM. Maybe if you combine an SLM with a database (as a tool) then it could work, but someone should first prove that.

But do you really need a model that has the complete Duran Duran discography memorized and preloaded in RAM at all time?

Re: If this is true, the hyperscalers are toast

#32

This logic seems mad. If people only need SLMs then hyperscalers can also centrally host higher-efficiency models, and still gain efficiencies of scale and convenience over hosting locally.

The valuations of the hyperscalars won't sustain just being more efficient than something you can run locally. There's a market there, but it's for margin on a commodity. They're priced for oligopoly on unique, premium products.

Re: If this is true, the hyperscalers are toast

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their point isn’t that local models are better or even as good more but that if you can do 50%+ of tasks with local then that’s 50% of tokens that aren’t captured as compute done in data centers.

> As you can see, on average, SLMs are as good if not better than LLMs in 81.2% of the cases, with the LLMs having a significant advantage only in areas like engineering, life sciences, transportation and computer sciences. So what I’m reading here is “LLMs have a significant advantage” in the most critical areas that have practically infinite demand for more intelligence.

The article is kinda dumb, and yes this is clearly the area where frontier models having and advantage matters the most, but I'd point out that these smaller open-weight models are performing better than the big Frontier models of just 4-6 months ago.

This means that the Frontier labs are under immense pressure to maintain that lead, and could end up in serious trouble if they stumble at all.

The other thing id point out is that a lot of us who are token-sensitive do things like build plans using expensive, smart models, and then execute those plans using cheaper dumber models.

Then there's the fact that we are still in the age of heavily subsidized Frontier subscriptions + tokenmaxxing initiatives from megacorps. Neither of which are sustainable, and will drive more usage to smaller open models once they end.

Re: If this is true, the hyperscalers are toast

#35
Complete nonsense.

> they provide a better or at least as good an answer as LLMs in 62.5% of the cases.

Are we going to scrap hospitals because a vet could do the job 62.5% of the time?

The economics also point away from everyone buying a big RAM Mac that sits idle 99% of the time. SLM and own hardware sounds efficient and “free” but it is nothing of the sort when you factor everything in (and forfeit the sharing efficiencies of API)

SLMs are great esp for task specific fine tunes but this take isn’t it

Re: If this is true, the hyperscalers are toast

#36
post #31
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logic seems mad to me because SLMs can simply not hold as much information as an LLM. Maybe if you combine an SLM with a database (as a tool) then it could work, but someone should first prove that.

But do you really need a model that has the complete Duran Duran discography memorized and preloaded in RAM at all time?

That's a different question. Probably not. But:

1. Training a large model with lots of information, then stripping the "useless" information from that model to obtain a small model => nobody has shown this.

2. Training a small model, letting it use a database tool so it scores the same as a large model without database => nobody has shown this.

Re: If this is true, the hyperscalers are toast

#37
One of the big things to think about is whether local LLMs will be things companies want to deploy.

If you think of for e.g. some proprietary piece of software that wants to embed an LLM they've fine tuned or trained, they will want to make back some of their research cost right. So they are not going to want to put this on-device even if the hardware is there, unless there's some way of locking it down. I suspect we'll need on-hardware validation/verification and a way of preventing extraction of weights for this move to happen for many use cases.

Re: If this is true, the hyperscalers are toast

#38
I believe it is true, and likely there exists a class of even smaller models than what they call "small".

You can imagine a reasoning model as a huge set of rules that generate the next statement from previous statements (written in context). In that sense, a reasoning model can be compared to a logical theory - you have certain deduction rules which can generate new judgments.

Often, logical theories are structured that the rules are remade into axioms, and the deduction rule is only modus ponens (which corresponds to function application and is a building block of program execution).

In the case of an LLM, the set of rules (or axioms) they have in the theory is quite large, but most likely semantically unsound (with respect to their their own representation of truth) - that's why LLM's make mistakes.

It would be desirable to break the logical theory represented by LLM into a smaller set of axioms, which would:

a) remove rules easily deductible from the smaller core of axioms (for example, LLM doesn't need to remember "Socrates is mortal", as it can derive it from "Socrates is a man" and "all men are mortal")

b) remove rules that have low value (facts that aren't used often or have weak validity) which cause ruleset to become unsound

I suspect that's what SLM distillation is doing, to some extent.

The question is, how far this process can go? I personally believe there is a useful logic for commonsense reasoning that has less than thousand rules (still several orders more than your typical mathematical logic, but orders less than SLMs). These axioms do not contain much facts about the world, but that could be added.

So I believe there is a sweet spot (deductive core, encyclopedic shell) which we have not yet found (it's a little bit more formal language than natural language) but is very efficient for general reasoning.

Re: If this is true, the hyperscalers are toast

#39
post #31
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logic seems mad to me because SLMs can simply not hold as much information as an LLM. Maybe if you combine an SLM with a database (as a tool) then it could work, but someone should first prove that.

But do you really need a model that has the complete Duran Duran discography memorized and preloaded in RAM at all time?

I mean maybe yes? The hypothesis from the early GPT days was (and in a small way still remains): "If we just chuck more data into the training, does it get better at X, even if the data was seemingly unrelated to X?", and the workings of LLMs seem to kind be pointing in that direction, although with some ceiling.

But seemingly models good at programming for example, would get worse at programming if you removed everything not-programming. Train a model solely on syntax, and it'll be worse than a general purpose LLM on syntax, in general at least.

Re: If this is true, the hyperscalers are toast

#40
post #17
post #2

"If", sure. How many developers here don't see a difference between the latest LLMs and SLMs they can run on their own computer? I tried running a smaller model locally, and it's not usable for me. I know people like to "predict" things, so that if they happen they can then say "I am a visionary, I predicted it" and start their blog posts with "as I predicted long ago (because I am a visionary), ...". > The research…

> I tried running a smaller model locally, and it's not usable for me. If you have the hardware, a MacBook Pro for Qwen 3.6 35B A3B and Gemma 4 26B A4B for example, they are absolutely usable, both in terms of speed and quality. Anecdotally, I can use Qwen for day-to-day coding tasks in TS and Go, without hickups.

I’ve been experimenting with Qwen 3.8 27B and I believe I can totally use it as my main coding model provided I have the hardware for the full context. I don’t need my model to be opus level. I need it to do the tasks I want it to do without being an overprotective nanny.
Post reply on HN