Given how little most of us can know about the true cost of inference for these providers (and thus the financial sustainability of their services), this is an interesting signal. Not sure how to interpret it, but it doesn’t feel like it bodes well.
Given that providers of open source models can offer Kimi K2.5 at input $0.60 and output $2.50 per million tokens, I think the cost of inference must be around that. We would still need to compare the tokens per second.
You’re talking about something that happens in a country that wants free markets. It doesn’t really apply to countries that want oligopolies or monopolies.
Allowing individuals to hoard enough wealth to corrupt, at will, the system that gave them their wealth - maybe that wasn’t such a good idea after all.
It's not like the Soviets fared much better with regards to corruption and institutional decay, to the part where the rampant corruption of the Brezhnev-era was a major contributing cause to the eventual collapse of the union.
Institutional longevity is largely an unsolved problem. Seems having checks and balances like the US does helps slow it down to some extent, but is far from a guarantee.
Not sure I follow the link to the Soviets, but yes they certainly excelled at letting too few people accumulate too much power too. If only we were able to learn a little more from history.
Yes, he frequently exhibits an ego the size of Jupiter. But he is very smart†, and he writes well, and this stuff that theyre doing is at least interesting. I don't know if its physics or metaphysics or something else entirely, and it may be just empty tail-chasing, but I reckon its at least worth paying some attention to.
† and he's also built a long-term business making and selling extremely capable maths tooling, of all things, which I think is worth some respect
Fair enough. However I feel that there are plenty of others we could give our finite attention to, from who we would derive as much or more benefit from. So that’s what I’ll do, with no net loss for me.
FYI, "be the change you want to see" is approximately the golden rule "do unto others". If you want less ego in the world, demonstrate it yourself. It does not mean "complain about how other people act".
I said I want to _see_ less ego. Calling out assholes is being that change, because not enough people do it. If you’re going to try and feel superior through technicality (which let’s
be honest, claiming a single interpretation of a common phrase is a dumb way of trying to achieve that), at least pay attention to the details.
yeah i get the emotional push back but putting that aside, he still seems fairly well accomplished, more-so than me by a long shot and at least he is throwing nerdy ideas out there we can think about or discuss.
Well said, great analogy. Sometimes the level of abstraction feels arbitrary - you have to understand the circumstances that led there to see why it's not.
Because I’m saying the threat vector you used to justify it is not an issue for me at all, so it’s a baseless justification for “security”, ergo, theatre.
That's still not theater though. Annoying? Yes, quite! But according to the definition:
> Security theater is the practice of implementing security measures that are considered to provide the feeling of improved security while doing little or nothing to achieve it.[1][2]
Adding additional security to something that doesn’t need security is basically doing this by definition. It’s adding nothing because nothing was needed. So yes, theatre.
If there’s one thing I learnt from HN it’s how many people can’t comprehend this. Is it a byproduct of growing up in a very transactional or selfish environment?
Yes. First being a YouTube creator became a business, then twitch, tiktok, twitter. GenZ basically grew up with everything being/becoming a business "opportunity". Making money is the goal for "creators", to the point where ads have become normalized and not having a sponsor is leaving money on the table.
reply