161–170 of 195 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
License the training corpus and encourage copyright suits against outputs from models trained on unlicensed corpora.
This won't work if the courts decide that training is fair use, which certainly seems the direction they are going.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So why are they losing so much money? Mostly training. Claude didn't just get to be so good at coding by magic, it was suddenly so good because they did truly staggering amounts of RLHF and RLAIF on it. They are still doing that today, on any tasks they can figure out how to evaluate it on. This is capex for them. Their margins on inference are >90% today for tokens they sell (plans are hard to count, but still pro…
> Their margins on inference are >90% today for tokens they sell (plans are hard to count, but still profitable). That doesn’t make any sense, it doesn’t add up. Have you seen how much money they’re raising and burning? We know that training does not cost tens of billions. Brockman said OpenAI expects to spend $50 billion on compute this year. OpenAI’s revenue run rate is less than $50 billion for this year! For 90%…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you missed the part where starlink / orbiting datacenters don't really have to even make money as long as they partially fund rocket launch tests. Or maybe you don't take Elon seriously when he talks about Mars.
> Maybe you missed the part where starlink / orbiting datacenters don't really have to even make money as long as they partially fund rocket launch tests. I am only dismissing the orbital data centres, I do see a future for Starlink. One with competition, but a future nonetheless. I'm old enough to remember the dot.com bubble and "we lose money on each unit and make up for it in scale": If they don't make sense, they…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an example of common knowledge that is wrong. People look at their cash burn, assume that they spend this to subsidize inference, and get bonkers answers. Inference is not their largest expense. Inference is cheap. Anthropic is only drastically subsidizing their plans if you count their training expenses as part of their costs.
Are you an anthropic insider or something? Because if you are you should delete this comment. If you aren’t then you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
> What worries me about this is that Anthropic and OpenAI seem to have backed themselves into a corner of high costs. Can they reasonably decrease their prices by 20-50x to compete with DeepSeek or Xiaomi’s Mimo? They have high prices, not high costs. They will obviously keep prices as high as they can for as long as they can, while keeping demand up. Once demand starts to fall, so will the prices. > Are these models…
What are you even talking about? Everyone knows that Anthropic is drastically subsidizing their plans. It's actually the exact opposite of what you're talking about. The costs are extremely high and the prices are actually what's being subsidized and cheap right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely the same can be said for the people saying the opposite?
I didn’t make a claim. The parent explicitly said it was a misconception that inference is not profitable. No one knows if it’s profitable or not so we’re left to speculate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn’t make a claim. The parent explicitly said it was a misconception that inference is not profitable. No one knows if it’s profitable or not so we’re left to speculate.
You can make a fairly decent assumption by calculating the margin on serving glm 5.2, and adding say 30% extra costs and it still leaves a healthy margin
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can make a fairly decent assumption by calculating the margin on serving glm 5.2, and adding say 30% extra costs and it still leaves a healthy margin
Where are you getting 30% from
Earlier quoted context omitted.
3) Buy all the RAM, increasing the barrier to entry to push back the tide a bit, in time for a juicy IPO.
4) Make it illegal to use anything but regulated models.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe you missed the part where starlink / orbiting datacenters don't really have to even make money as long as they partially fund rocket launch tests. I am only dismissing the orbital data centres, I do see a future for Starlink. One with competition, but a future nonetheless. I'm old enough to remember the dot.com bubble and "we lose money on each unit and make up for it in scale": If they don't make sense, they…
Ok so you're ignoring the entire thing. Sigh .
If you build the DC satellites as currently specified, you're strictly better off not launching them. That's how bad the idea is.