I'm really not going to argue with you, because when faced with lots of little bits of compelling evidence from a whole bunch of sources (showing their work) ve

I'm really not going to argue with you, because when faced with lots of little bits of compelling evidence from a whole bunch of sources (showing their work) versus the word of some guy on the Internet, I'll believe the evidence. Sahil didn't actually refute any of the concerns around the hosted model, he just acknowledged that it was weird and said he didn't know why. Great. That's useless. So much for "looking at it as an engineer". But what's great about the passage of time is that people can actually take what's presented in the article and try to replicate the benchmarks. And now that it's Friday, October 4th, and we've got this gem: https://x.com/mattshumer_/status/1842313328166907995 https://x.com/mattshumer_/status/1842313328166907995 So frankly it's still a fraud, now because even after the postmortem the results are still not reproducible. That's the whole point, right? That it does what it says on the tin. And it doesn't. This whole process could be a shell script that downloads and runs. They've had more time than they should need. Now, it's gone from a shell game to plain old academic dishonesty. If this was a published paper, it would be ripe for retraction.