Economies of scale are a fact of nature and aren’t going to be subverted in the future by even the most advanced local models

▲

kennywinker 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Which is of course why, if you want to render 3d scenes to play a video game, you have to rent time on a mainframe system. I don’t see that changing ever - it’s just economies of scale!

(sarcasm, btw)

▲

Gigachad 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The economies of scale gains are lost because you still have a middle man hosting provider who wants to profit too.

Over the long term it's always been better to buy than to rent, even if the renting option is technically more efficient on the GPUs, you don't have to pay some hosting providers profit margin.

▲

oceanplexian 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Things can get both more expensive and cheaper at scale, hence the term.

For example (and relevant to AI) I can generate electricity on my roof at $0.20-25/kWh, batteries included. In California the electric utility can’t offer it cheaper than $0.30-0.50/kWh. Therefore at scale, electricity is actually more expensive.

There are many such examples.

	▲	sanderjd 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, I think the fallacy here is the conflation of scale and centralization. Right now, there is way more scale in centralized AI than there is at the edge. But that could flip. I'd still probably put the probability that it will under 50%. But I'd also put it above zero!

▲

sanderjd 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

... said the IBM executive to a young Bill Gates.