- 242comments
- 79comments
- 2comments
- 185comments
- 21comments
- —discuss
- 4comments
- 119comments
- 458comments
- 60comments
- 153comments
- 16comments
- 21comments
- 17comments
- 16comments
- 297comments
- —discuss
- 83comments
- 6comments
- —discuss
- 378comments
- 496comments
- 4comments
- 37comments
- 384comments
- 142comments
- 56comments
- 363comments
- 31comments
- 35comments
The problem, IMO, with open-weight models is that you accustom to the capabilities of frontier models too quickly; and downgrading to an open-weight "frontier minus 2" or "frontier minus 3" model is often painful, since they feel way less useful than their newer closed-weights counterpart. To be honest, I don't know any companies using OW models at a large scale for their operations (agents or chat assistants).
I think an interesting point is that hardware as of today still has no utility value after its reported lifetime has elapsed, which prevents neolabs and smaller labs from getting older HW clusters as the banks are not willing to give out loans against them. There is no agreed upon pricing for "expired" A100 clusters or similar.
This is clearly not true, and we are starting to see compute markets, but only for rental prices/H, not for the hardware itself. I feel like there is some artificial moat being built here to stimulate sales of new hardware, because an H100 at 1/16th the price will have comparable dollar/FLOP as Vera Rubin.
Depends on the workload. H100 will never have the network performance of Vera Rubin. There's also token per watt, newer systems will beat the older systems.
Then why do people still believe that OpenAI any Anthropic have negative margins