pqtyw

5 ms·

31.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
It helped the valuation but as just like SpaceX hallucinations about the space data centres. Doesn't mean its not a crappy low end model itself. Btw is Twitter even making any money?
32.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
By not succeeding? It's an also ran, a closed proprietary model which is behind Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and a a bunch of Chinese companies, how do you make money with a produce like that? (besides the absurd IPO of course...)
33.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
But there is no indication they are losing money on tokens when R&D and other expenses are factored out? The margins on API are likely very high so the higher the volume the more likely they will be able to cover the other mostly fixed
34.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
> unlimited access to compute Yes because Grok failed and they now have "unlimited" compute they can sell to other. I mean you are right that if they did X, Y and Z they could be very successful but their is no indication that
35.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
Fundamentally you are right, problem is that most UI applications in general have garbage tier UX and/or are a buggy mess.
36.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
> $4B ARR If you resell something worth $5 for $5 while having to pay for R&D and operating expenses that's not exactly comparable with a company that's selling actual products. > Say 17x Multiple On an extremely low mar
37.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
> If you look at all of these together, it's not implausible that they end up mostly 'owning' coding They really need to change their trajectory then? And regardless being owned by xAI, a failed AI company which turned int
38.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
Infra is perhaps somewhat safe but realistically it's a really low margin capital intense business long-term unless you can lock-in customers with hundreds of services like AWS. So not a lot of space for a huge ROI. > are all the ra
39.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
Well.. if that's it it's not really much to shown for if you spent $7 million on it.
40.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
To be fair they also claim they will give you $200k...
41.
Ask HN: Why is there some sort of a scam website being advertised on HN?
134 points by pqtyw 4mo ago|53 comments
42.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
Clearly seems like something dodgy and most like a scam, why would it be on the first page?
43.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
All secondary sources can be just as wrong, while standards of course might differ being published doesn't prove much on its own. Also of course in many/most non theoretical fields you find plenty of conflicting sources so relying
44.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
Well you or me also can publish a statement claiming we are Google's competitors. That doesn't mean they'll take it seriously.
45.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
Yeah sure the technical problems are solvable if you throw money at them. I'm sure we could have had a colony on Mars by this point as well if NASA/etc. continuously spent insane massive amounts of money on every year since the 70
46.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
There is no evidence they can deliver anything competitive based on their past performance, though. Even if their model is competitive or even surpasses e.g. Deepseek (which is far from given) how would that justify a huge valuation?
47.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
Well Google needs GPUs, SpaceX has GPUs but nothing to do with them since their AI business failed. Why is that insufficient?
48.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
Or SpaceX just has too many GPUs and nothing to do with them besides renting them out to someone since their AI products suck and nobody uses them?
49.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
Well... AOL had rather extreme aspirations and a massively overvalued market cap during the internet boom as well. So yes, ridiculous things like that happen and markets are very often not rational at all (short and medium term at least).
50.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
Maybe you are right, maybe not.. However Facebook as an example seems entirely irrelevant, though? It was valued 15 P/S ratio at IPO and went down to 10 a year after the IPO. You'd have a point if Facebook IPO at $400 instead of $
51.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
> SpaceX could rise to be a major winner that makes people a lot of money Based on "sane"/traditional metrics that and much more is already priced in into the IPO valuation. e.g. Google had a many times lower P/S rati
52.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
I would expect the overwhelming majority of output tokens would not be the actual code but used for analysis, reasoning, testing and iteration. If you only use the agent for autocomplete then yes, the calculation is probably different.
53.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
It's mostly R&D though, not inference. If LLM's effectively become a commodity then they are screwed anyway.
54.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
Yeah, that's not going to work if you can get e.g. 80% of value by using 10-20x or more cheaper open models. At some point it would just make sense for large companies to rent compute and deploy their version of DeepSeek or whatever (i
55.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
That's just market segmentation and them trying to maximize revenue it doesen't really say anything about their costs.
56.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
Openrouter? i.e. Even excluding Deep Seek inference for very large open models is way cheaper. Maybe these providers are not very profitable but its highly unlikely that they are losing $4 for every $1 they make since selling inference is t
57.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
The inference prices for very large open models would indicate that Antrophic's and OpenAI's margins are quite large.
58.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
> doing a days work in an hour then fucking off in a variety of ways Until companies start hiring 5x less engineers than they did before and well.. we are clearly moving towards that direction
59.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
What's the point of running it locally though? Inference for open models is quite cheap already. They could just selfhost, anyway. The experience of running LLMs locally will be excruciatingly bad in comparison at least for the near fu
60.
by pqtyw 4mo ago
How is tok/s not a bottleneck I? I assume most people still use ai agents interactively rather than leaving them to do their own thing during the night. I find anything below 50 tps or so entirely unusable... Regardless its Apples to o

More ›