logoalt Hacker News

adam_arthuryesterday at 11:33 PM2 repliesview on HN

Yes, which is why the companies that develop the models aren't cost viable. (Google and others who can subsidize it at a loss obviously are excepted)

Where is the return on the model development costs if anybody can host a roughly equivalent model for the same price and completely bypass the model development cost?

Your point is inline with the entire bear thesis on these companies.

For any use cases which are analytical/backend oriented, and don't scale 1:1 with number of users (of which there are a lot), you can already run a close to cutting edge model on a few thousand dollars of hardware. I do this at home already


Replies

TheRoquetoday at 1:13 AM

The other nightmare for these companies, is that any competitor can use their state of the art model for training another model. As some Chinese models are suspected to do. I personally think it's only fair, since those companies in the first place trained on a ton of data and nobody agreed to it. But it shows that training the frontier models have really low returns on investment

wyretoday at 12:19 AM

Open source models are still a year or so behind the SotA models released the last few months. The price to performance is definitely in favor of Open Source models however.

DeepMind is actively using Google’s LLMs on groundbreaking research. Anthropic is focused on security for businesses.

For consumers it’s still a better deal for a subscription than to invest a few grand in a personal LLM machine. There will be a time in the future where diminishing returns shortens this gap significantly, but I’m sure top LLM researchers are planning for this and will do whatever they can to keep their firm alive beyond the cost of scaling.