Egregoros · Phoenix Framework

Post

Remote status

Context

Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever

LLMs could be a bad blow to anonymously publishing software.
If you want to keep a project separate from your day job / real identity, you need a second subscription. $20/mo is not that big a deal, but $200 (Claude Max) sure is. If the haters are to be believed, we might see a hike in pricing as well.

lain

@lain@lain.com remote

@WandererUber the haters are %100 wrong on this one. deepseek/glm/kimi inference is already profitable at low prices

Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever

@WandererUber@poa.st remote

as they often are.

>profitable
for whom?

lain

@lain@lain.com remote

@WandererUber for people who have inference hardware

Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever

@WandererUber@poa.st remote

that's not the issue. If the model is not profitable for the lab making it, they must raise prices (and stop/delay weight releases)

lain

@lain@lain.com remote

@WandererUber these are all open models, anyone can run them. if a third party can run them at profit right now, they'll be able to do that in the future. glm and deepseek and kimi are worse than claude and codex, but not so much worse that people wouldn't swithc to them if claude would cost $1000 a month

Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever

@WandererUber@poa.st remote

>if a third party can run them at profit right now, they'll be able to do that in the future.
I don't like that I have to spell everything out WHILE playing devil's advocate. This does not follow at all. They have training costs to recoup and if they don't keep pace they will fall behind. If they fall behind, Anthrobbicc would be able raise prices to e.g. $40 for pro, maybe $100

barrier to entry for writing code and not publishing it under your own name was virtually zero (compared to having a different identity anyway of course) and now is not.

lain

@lain@lain.com remote

@WandererUber but the open models are trained already, there's no more cost. i'm not talking about anthropic and openai and who ever trains. the open models are profitable right now. if the trainers go bankrupt, well, that's sad, but inference still stays profitable.

Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever

@WandererUber@poa.st remote

We had this discussion before and you are making an argument that I
-already agree with
-is only tangentially related to what I am saying here

>People can just stay on GLM5.1
they can also hand-code. If SOTA devving costs money and you have to pay again if you want it under a second identity, that's a detriment.
If GLM 5.1 is not profitable for the model trainer, there will not be GLM N.1 in future. Open Weights models *could* lag behind which would make SOTA be OAI / DarioCorp -dependent. I believe quite a few people would be deterred and/or chance it under their real account and catch a C&D from Nintendo for it

lain

@lain@lain.com remote

@WandererUber yeah, that's true. if current level training turns out to be not profitable, we won't get better models soon. but the current ones still are profitable. so i'm not sure what we are disagreeing on

Replying to @lain@lain.com

Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever

@WandererUber@poa.st remote

idk I just don't get why you are making the argument that GLM 5.1 inference is profitable for providers at all here.
The issue is something else. If you are seriously implying that GLM 5.1 is good enough that people would use it over $100 2028 Claude, then I guess we disagree about that.
It's as if I said "training models could be an issue to do anonymously if Nvidia puts phone # verification in their GPUs and you have to buy a second one" and you replied with "a 2023 chromebook will be cheap forever"
It's besides the point.

Replies

Fetching replies…