451–460 of 580 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Opus 4.8 has made huge jumps in being less sycophantic. I see it pushing back on ideas a lot, and that's very helpful when you're evaluating options.
It’s more like Opus wants you to do its job for it. I feel that amount of time when I tell it “no, you do that” increases with each new version.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have the pro account for ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Grok. They all have various strengths and weaknesses. My favorite is still ChatGPT, then Gemini/Claude, then Grok. Grok often feels 1-2 generations behind the competition in general use, but it has three things that I love: 1. It seems to be the best at understanding current events. Maybe due to X integration, or some other tool call optimization in the backend?…
What are you using it for? Im pretty surprised ChatGPT is your top model but maybe you arent using it for code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Opus 4.8 has made huge jumps in being less sycophantic. I see it pushing back on ideas a lot, and that's very helpful when you're evaluating options.
It’s more like Opus wants you to do its job for it. I feel that amount of time when I tell it “no, you do that” increases with each new version.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there anything to read on how the economics of an orbital datacenter make any sense? Because I don't really see how blasting a server into space solves any of the typical issues associated with datacentres beyond easier access to solar.
> anything to read on how the economics of an orbital datacenter make any sense? I'll do a write-up at some point. But the core drivers are launch cost, permitting delays for terrestrial datacentres and interest rates. The balance is between, on one hand, the financing cost of the permiting delays against, on the other hand, the cost of launching radiators. (Chips are light. Solar panels without glass cladding are su…
> permitting delays for terrestrial datacentres
going down any time soon, or even being possible.
Is this HN user runako’s comment[1] from 2 days ago turned into an article? I guess it’s very possible multiple people are coming up with the same idea at the same time but given this was submitted by the author it seems kinda rude not to mention it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=runako#48426082
AFAIK the Colossus data center was more or less "brute force" when it comes to building a datacenter fast -- ie it was very expensive and they cut some pretty ugly corners (their generators are "temporary" to get around regulations, but I don't see how they can possibly be "temporary" and they create a massive amount of pollution compared to other power sources). The reason I point that out is the article mentions th…
Cheap. Fast. Good. Pick two. Colossus is the world's largest single, unified GPU cluster, all GPUs acting as one coherent supercomputer rather than fragmented pools or multi-site setups. They spun it up in a fraction of the time by all estimates. It's not something you can just throw money at and reproduce the results. Per Jensen Huang: "As far as I know, there's only one person in the world who could do that; Elon i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, hear me out, maybe there's a compute shortage and xAI has compute and manages that well. There are no dark GPUs. Compute translates directly to money for these frontier labs. I think everyone is reading way too much into this. Sure there is some circular transactions that are sus, but this ain't it.
The compute is useless if nobody is left to pay for the compute, once all the AI companies die, from all that debt getting called in, once everyone realizes it's a scam. (AI isn't a scam, but the financial deals and promises of unrealistic recoupment are)
I’m so confused by conflicting headlines and studies. One set says gpus sit idle most of the time, then there are apparent capacity problems with Anthropic. So what’s the deal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Compute is also a rapidly depreciating asset. That's the default assumption but in the new GPU+Memory constrained age isn't true. Time on 4 year old H100 servers costs more now than when they were new (!!)
I also feel that the GPU/NPU value does not lose money as fast anymore. What I am wondering though is how long can you run such a system at basically full load without interruption before it starts to just physically degrade. If I have a H100 and I let it run for 4 years at full throttle does it still have the same theoretical value as it had at the start or are the chips just burning out. I think I remember that bac…
That's because the rate of improvement in silicon manufacturing has been continually declining for a few decades, which has a compounding effect. Just compare the technological improvements in successive decades. 1976->1986->1996->2006->2016->2026.
That's why "in real terms" performance has only been very slowly improving if you compare apples to apples (and not e.g. apples to oranges by reducing precision, like nvidia tends to do, or by comparing chips with x W to an MCM with x*2 W and saying the latter is much faster). The "just halve the number of bits in each generation" strategy has also run out now, there's no more bits to halve.