4 ms·
There is also a lot of different models at a lot of different price points (and LLMs are fairly hard to compare to begin with). In this theory of a likely loss-
by jstummbillig 1y ago
There is also a lot of different models at a lot of different price points (and LLMs are fairly hard to compare to begin with). In this theory of a likely loss-leader, must we assume that all of them, from all companies, are priced below cost...? If so, that seems like a fairly wild claim. What's Step 2 for all of these companies to get ahead of this, given how model development currently works?
I think the far more reasonable assumption is: It's profitable enough to not get super nervous about the existence of your company. You have to build very costly models and build insanely costly infrastructure. Running all of that at a loss without an obvious next step, because ALL of them are pricing to not even make money at inference, seems to require a lot of weird ideas about how companies are run.
- otterley 1y agoWe’ve seen this pattern before. This happened in the 1990s during the original dot-com boom. Investors gamble, everything is subsidized, most companies fail, and the ones left standing then raise prices.
- dietr1ch 1y agoI don't think it's that wild. Hardware will improve together with performance, but once the market stops expanding and behaviour gets stagnant the market shares will solidify, so you better aim to have a large portion to make the scale together with the improvements help reach profitability.