What do you mean iffy? The major AI labs are gross profitable when selling access to inference. In addition, the best models have trillions of parameters and are most efficiently served on large, expensive clusters and served to many concurrent users.
That’s like saying an apartment building is “profitable” because the rent covers utilities while ignoring the real cost which is the mortgage on the capital cost of the building.
It’s funky math and a good way to quickly go bankrupt.
They make money on each token when you look at the electricity and interconnect fees, but no, I don’t think they’ve turned a profit on their Capex, even a little bit
Well, I can run some models that are better than some of the weaker and cheaper Anthropic models locally, like Haiku 4.5, and solve tasks that would cost ~4500$ every day in tokens, so yeah, they are definitely extremely profitable on inference.
It is unfortunate, but we're still in the early days of AV's. I think that more cities and states will be amenable to them once they have proven themselves as indispensable.
Would you mind expanding on the difference between frontier model development and open model development? I was under the impression that they were nearly the same thing and would thus be handled by the same team. My impression is that open models tend to go through more safety testing and are generally smaller, but are otherwise the same thing. Shouldn't most of what is commonly referred to as 'AI research' be applicable to both?
They do make biodegradable hot glue [1] but it's still not perfect. It's biodegradable and certified compostable under industrial conditions but it still has a polymer base. It's also not ideal for projects that are always in UV light.
Shouldn't we be able to detect radio coming from SAR satellites? If SpaceX were to launch a cover SAR constellation, why can't they just use starlink as an excuse, why do they have to invent a new businessline?
If you consider 'trading' to be short term buying and selling of stocks, then yeah. Holding stocks long term is nothing like trading commodities though.
I’ve had similar thoughts, but I’ve come around to this buildout being rational. All of the big ai labs are still jockeying for compute and are having trouble keeping up with inference demand.
> The authors find that being hit by a 1,000-pound heavier vehicle results in a 47 percent increase in the baseline probability of being killed in the accident
The linked article just looked at collisions that happened and compared danger by vehicle weight. If I had to guess, I would assume lighter vehicles generally have a shorter stopping distance and hit pedestrians less.
The vehicle stopping distances are generally close enough that the only things that will matter in a practical sense is the reaction time of the driver and the condition of the vehicles. From 60mph to 0 in a Toyota Camry is 122 feet, and an F150 is 129 feet. The age of your tires/brakes blow away that 7 feet of difference.
I think it makes sense that video games shouldn't be resold. Do you think you should be able to resell a movie ticket? I don't because I see the purchase of a movie ticket as the right to see a movie once. In the same way I think purchasing a game should give you a right to download a game from your account.
The argument to allow second user sales of computer games is that it drives first user sales.
When a game costs $50 and I can't get any of that money back when I've finished playing the game I need to think really carefully before buying it. If I know I can get some money back by selling the game it makes it easier for me to buy it.
> I don't because I see the purchase of a movie ticket as the right to see a movie once.
So, Netflix should only allow one person to watch the screen at a time, and everyone in the room watching the tv show needs to purchase an account, or maybe a pay-per-view watch?
> The argument to allow second user sales of computer games is that it drives first user sales.
Digital games have their own benefits — sales. If games can be resold, one person may buy a game and then sell it to another person. With non resealable games, both of the people in the above example would buy the game later in a sale. Sales are one of the best uses of price discrimination; practically everyone gets to play a game eventually if they want to, but those who especially want to can pay more.
> So, Netflix should only allow one person to watch the screen at a time, and everyone in the room watching the tv show needs to purchase an account, or maybe a pay-per-view watch?
I don’t see how my statement implies this. Single use tickets and subscriptions services are different things.
I think there are many more counter examples than supportive to your argument here:
- should you be able to resell a book?
- resell a CD?
- board game
- lego
- badminton racket
_ad nauseum_. the idea of a movie ticket, is that it provides a closed-in-time temporal experience. The movie screens at those given times in a theatre and then never there again (be it months or whatever post-release). A video game is an experience made whenever wherever a person wants.
