| ▲ | gruez 4 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
>when the competition is.. near-equivalent-capability DeepSeek/Qwen/Llama on a $1k GPU with a break-even of 5 months of subscription costs Lol no. Chinese AIs are definitely not "near-equivalent-capability". The empirical proof is pretty obvious: how many people have you heard talking about using their codex/claude code subscription vs their z.ai or qwen subscription? Moreover even the Chinese models require epic amounts of GPUs to run the full version, eg. https://apxml.com/models/glm-51 needs 1515 GB to run, and that's with a measly 1024 token context. To get it to run on your "$1k GPU" you'd need to quantize it, making it even dumber. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | parliament32 4 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Today, sure. But we already see diminishing returns with Claude releases, and we know the open models are closing the gap (~6 months behind according to the benchmarks). And when the pitch is "our models are 5% better but cost $200/mo.. also here's a mountain of restrictions" it just won't make sense anymore. Give it a year or two. I could see the "avoid the hardship of running a local model for $20/mo" angle but Anthropic has shown they have little interest in those customers. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||