Yes, I'm far more likely to purchase if I can understand the full picture. It's not quite as good as frontier models, but it's 60 times cheaper.

Honesty and transparency are attractive.

▲

adrithmetiqa 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I really would like to understand how it can be 60 times cheaper. Is that a like for like comparison? Is there a more equivalent frontier model that is closer in price?

▲

thatsabadlook an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe you are more likely to buy things when benchmarks are honest, but openai and anthropic have been cheating at those for years. They get purchased a lot. Most purchases are emotional things, even for technical products. That's why they sell llms like it's crack, a weapon, or if you don't you will starve to death in the future. One thing I like about the Chinese and euro labs is they don't market their products in harmful ways, but that's a tangent.

▲

cadamsdotcom 33 minutes ago | parent [-]

Sounds like there's a gap in the market for an honest player to fill.

▲

thatsabadlook 22 minutes ago | parent [-]

It's more or less all stupid anyways. Benchmarks can give someone and understanding of what a model was trained on but they don't explain tone, consistency, the type of answers, the restrictions, what the money is going to, etc.

And ultimately most use of llms is gambling. So a lot of people get hooked on their one machine or whatever despite all reasons to the contrary. Some of the most deranged LLM users I e encountered are hooked on a variety of models but still use ones from like 2 years ago for specific tasks for emotional reasons.

The truth is, for 99.999% of use cases the top 10 models are more or less interchangeable. Either they can mostly do what someone wants, or none of them should probably be used for that application even if s leading lab is advertising it.

	▲	cindyllm 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]