171–180 of 870 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you are wrong. https://epoch.ai/data-insights/llm-inference-price-trends this is accounting for the fact that more tokens are used.
The chart shows that they’re right though. Newer models cost more than older models. Sure they’re better but that’s moot if older models are not available or can’t solve the problem they’re tasked with.
I worry about the "brain atrophy" part, as I've felt this too. And not just atrophy, but even moreso I think it's evolving into "complacency". Like there have been multiple times now where I wanted the code to look a certain way, but it kept pulling back to the way it wanted to do things. Like if I had stated certain design goals recently it would adhere to them, but after a few iterations it would forget again and g…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not true. Many technologies get more expensive over time, as labor gets more expensive or as certain skills fall by the wayside, not everything is mass market. Have you tried getting a grandfather clock repaired lately?
"repairing a unique clock" getting costlier doesn't mean technology hasn't gotten cheaper. check out whether clocks have gotten cheaper in general. the answer is that it has. there is no economy of scale here in repairing a single clock. its not relevant to bring it up here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not true. Many technologies get more expensive over time, as labor gets more expensive or as certain skills fall by the wayside, not everything is mass market. Have you tried getting a grandfather clock repaired lately?
No. You don't get to make "technology gets more expensive over time" statements for deprecated technologies. Getting a bespoke flintstone axe is also pretty expensive, and has also absolutely no relevance to modern life. These discussions must, if they are to be useful, center in a population experience, not in unique personal moments.
Otherwise, I think you're incidentally right, your "ego" /is/ bruised, and you're looking for a way out by trying to prognosticate on the future of the technology. You're failing in two different ways.
I worry about the "brain atrophy" part, as I've felt this too. And not just atrophy, but even moreso I think it's evolving into "complacency". Like there have been multiple times now where I wanted the code to look a certain way, but it kept pulling back to the way it wanted to do things. Like if I had stated certain design goals recently it would adhere to them, but after a few iterations it would forget again and g…
It's not just brain atrophy, I think. I think part of it is that we're actively making a tradeoff to focus on learning how to use the model rather than learning how to use our own brains and work with each other. This would be fine if not for one thing: the meta-skill of learning to use the LLM depreciates too. Today's LLM is gonna go away someday, the way you have to use it will change. You will be on a forever trea…
> LLM coding will split up engineers based on those who primarily liked coding and those who primarily liked building. I’ve always said I’m a builder even though I’ve also enjoyed programming (but for an outcome, never for the sake of the code) This perfectly sums up what I’ve been observing between people like me (builders) who are ecstatic about this new world and programmers who talk about the craft of programming…
Instead of a 17 paragraph twitter post with a baffling TLDR at the end why not just record your screen and _demonstrate_ all of what you're describing? Otherwise, I think you're incidentally right, your "ego" /is/ bruised, and you're looking for a way out by trying to prognosticate on the future of the technology. You're failing in two different ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is incorrect. the cost to achieve the same task by old models is way higher than by new models. > Newer models cost more than older models where did you see this?
On the link you shared, 4o vs 3.5 turbo price per 1m tokens. There’s no such thing as ”same task by old model”, you might get comparable results or you might not (and this is why the comparison fail, it’s not a comparison), the reason you pick the newer models is to increase chances of getting a good result.
This should answer. In your case, GPT-3.5 definitely is cheaper per token than 4o but much much less capable. So they used a model that is cheaper than GPT-3.5 that achieved better performance for the analysis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The chart shows that they’re right though. Newer models cost more than older models. Sure they’re better but that’s moot if older models are not available or can’t solve the problem they’re tasked with.
OpenAI has always priced newer models lower than older ones.
Not according to their pricing table. Then again I’m not sure what OpenAI model versions even mean anymore, but I would assume 5.2 is in the same family as 5 and 5.2-pro as 5-pro