|
| ▲ | ZeroGravitas 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| "race to the bottom" is the negative framing of "competitive market prices". So a company or union might say "this is a race to the bottom" when someone new enters their market, but to people buying their services this might be seen as welcome competition. Do you actually see a negative impact from competition in this area? Or do you just mean competition will further reduce prices? |
| |
| ▲ | rcxdude 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "race to the bottom" is also a response to a "market for lemons". It's not necessarily a good thing because while pricing drops to the floor so also does value to the customer in general. Usually it happens when price is very visible but the details of what the buyer actually receives are not. | |
| ▲ | pinkgolem 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can only outlaw stuff in your own countrys.. And if cheaper access is an advantage, other countries will surpass you |
|
|
| ▲ | woadwarrior01 21 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's unlikely that a clear single winner will emerge in this competitive market. |
|
| ▲ | robwwilliams an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You patent and protect (as best you can) the missing ingredients needed to get to AGI. Only half joking and also scary to contemplate. Qualcomm’s CDMA patent is on example. ARM and Texas Instruments two other examples. |
|
| ▲ | riffraff 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Competitors run out of money and shut down, perhaps. Although I don't see how that happens for anyone but Google. |
|
| ▲ | PeterStuer 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Regulatory capture. You get them to outlaw the part of the competion (safety!) that is unwilling to pricefix and participate in your margin and market division agreements. |
|
| ▲ | efficax 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| only way you could win the market would be to own all the gpus |
|
| ▲ | reactordev 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You hit the nail on the head. It's a race to the bottom. |
| |
| ▲ | BoorishBears 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Everyone is raising the bottom. Kimi got 60% more expensive during the 2.x cycle despite staying the exact same size. Now K3 is almost 6x the cost of the original K2 checkpoint, and while the parameter count finally jumped, it's still an extremely sparse MoE and definitely does not cost 6x what the original K2 checkpoint did to host at scale. Race to the bottom only takes real effect when there's a cap to the capabilities, otherwise everyone races to the bottom of a rising target (how economically valuable the tokens are) | | |
| ▲ | NikxDa 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | But Kimi (at least say) will release their weights. So surely, if their prices are too high, somebody else will host it cheaper? | | |
| ▲ | BoorishBears 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | a) Why and b) With what compute? "Why" as in, why take lower margins when Moonshot currently can't service all the demand for the model anyways. Based on past models no one is going to massively undercut Moonshot: few have the chops to serve it as efficiently as Moonshot and of those few, most of them don't go for being the cheapest, they go for being fast + reliable (think Together, Fireworks). You get what you pay for applies very much with how many axes there are to serving these increasingly large models. - And for "with what compute": as the value of a token goes up, what people are willing to pay for compute is going up. Every once in a while I'll see a story about falling rental rates, but with even slightly more established clouds I've been seeing availability get worse and worse over time. I'm pretty sure the only reason the highly informal indexes don't reflect this is because every neocloud trying to cash in on an NVIDIA Inception discount kicks off by selling unrealistically cheap compute for a bit. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | jeffybefffy519 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Whats the bottom here tho? Its obvious what winning is. |
|
| ▲ | lofaszvanitt 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| AGI will be insanely priced. LLMs are retarded childrin compared to proper intelligence. So this is just the entry level intelligence like thing. But I doubt there will be an AGI accessible by anyone. |
| |
| ▲ | efficax 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | If AGI comes to exist it won't be "priced" at all, since the lab that creates it will either quickly be seized by the gov't for national security, or they will become the most powerful organization in the world and have no need to sell services to other corporations. they will become the only corporation. | | |
| ▲ | brookst 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Good sci fi premise, but not at all how AGI will happen. It’s not going to be a singularity at one moment of time. It’s not going to be instant runaway self-improvement, no matter what doomers and fetishists say. It’s going to be gradual. We’ll see glimmers of AGI, and the “G” part will be about gradual broadening of domains and deepening of capabilities. All of the coding harnesses are already using their own tools to self-improve, and the HITL component is getting less frequent and at higher levels of abstraction. That’s how AGI gets here: very gradually, no hard takeoff, and nobody will be able to pinpoint when exactly it happened. So: also no single lab with a massive advantage, no government takeovers. It’ll be a lot less dramatic than the extremes believe. IMO, of course. |
|
|
