  A Fable 5 model running at 9,000 tokens/s on an ASIC rather than 150 tokens/s on electricity chugging Nvidia GPUs, or even giant SRAM Cerebras or Groq chips could be good enough to meet the majority of demand.

640K ought to be enough for anybody.

▲ JacobAsmuth 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Agreed 100%. This guy thinks there's a limit on the demand for intelligence. You think that Fable 7 which can run a billion dollar corporation on its own has no consumer demand just because we have fable 5 at 9k tok/s? Who do you think will be the biggest customer of such a model? Fable 7, obviously.

▲

jackb4040 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sorry, which billion-dollar corporation is Fable running "on its own"?

	▲	blep_ 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Fable 7 isn't a thing, 5 is the one people are currently excited about. They're talking about a hypothetical more-advanced future version.
	▲	aaronharnly 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		They imagined a "Fable 7" model (i.e. two generations hence) which would be capable of such feats.

▲

drob518 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Of course not. But many tasks won’t require Fable 7 level intelligence and many people won’t want to pay for it. Honestly, I’m using Deepseek v4 Flash a LOT lately to do more mundane tasks because it’s so nearly free and I don’t need Fable or even Opus. Serving those mid-level models at high speeds and low prices is a definite winner for lots of applications. And sure, the frontier models will continue to drive the frontier forward.

▲

sdfefcxv 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

theoretically theres a no limit on the demand of anything if the price is right

pretty stupid statement lmao

▲

LarsDu88 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Certainly there will be demand for Fable7, but that demand is context specific. Frontier labs' profit is dependent on there being sufficient demand for the next layer of capability and whether the premium consumers are willing to pay for that.

The incremental unlock of capability by ever increasing frontier model sizes will eventually reach diminishing returns.

I would argue tnference speed increases would actually unlock a different kind of more meaningful value for a wider audience.

▲ dymk 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I am really confused about the point you're trying to make. 150tok/s is slow, but so is 9000tok/s? Or they're both fast? Or 150tok/s should be enough?

▲

oliyoung 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The "640k should be enough for anyone" quote (even if Gates didn't exactly say it) is making the point is that _right now_ we have no idea about what our future needs and capabilities will be, we can't imagine what "should be enough" will be

640k was enough ... in 1981 ... almost fifty years later is 50,000 lower than a standard off the shelf PC now

	▲	dymk 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If that’s the case I still don’t get it. 640k was enough in 1981, same as how 150 (or 9k) tok/sec would suffice for 2026 The comment seems like the nerd equivalent of 6 7

▲

hughw 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

probably no number you come up with will be adequate for very long. [edit] it's a reference to this possibly apocryphal prediction https://www.computerworld.com/article/1563853/the-640k-quote...

▲ foobit-dev 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 640K ought to be enough for anybody.

I get this reference!