Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by teaearlgraycold 137 days ago
What’s to stop them? Competition.
5 comments

From whom? OpenAI and Google? Who else has the sort of resources to train and run SOTA models at scale?

You just reduced the supply of engineers from millions to just three. If you think it was expensive before ...

> Who else has the sort of resources to train and run SOTA models at scale?

Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, Amazon, Reka AI, Alibaba (Qwen), 01 AI, Cohere, DeepSeek, Nvidia, Mistral, NexusFlow, Z.ai (GLM), xAI, Ai2, Princeton, Tencent, MiniMax, Moonshot (Kimi) and I've certainly missed some.

All of those organizations have trained what I'd class as a GPT-4+ level model.

> Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, Amazon, Reka AI, Alibaba (Qwen), 01 AI, Cohere, DeepSeek, Nvidia, Mistral, NexusFlow, Z.ai (GLM), xAI, Ai2, Princeton, Tencent, MiniMax, Moonshot (Kimi) and I've certainly missed some.

This is not a lot competition though. And you need to assume, that like other industries, mergers and acquisitions will happen over time which will put you in an increasingly worse position.

Kimi 2.5 is an opensource model with many providers https://openrouter.ai/moonshotai/kimi-k2.5/providers

Sure, opus and codex are significantly better. But price wise they cannot deviate too much from open models.

Especially if the open models are grounded against the digital twin.

Ah but I said "_... and running at scale_"
Of the list I gave you, at a guess:

Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, Amazon, Alibaba (Qwen), Nvidia, Mistral, xAI - and likely more of the Chinese labs but I don't know much about their size.

I guess where I was leading to is who owns the compute that runs those models. Mistral, for example, lists Microsoft and Google as subprocessors (1). Anthropic is (was?) running on GCP and AWS.

So, we have multiple providers, but for how long? They're all competing for the same hardware and the same energy, and it will naturally converge into an oligopoly. So, if competition doesn't set the floor, what does?

Local models? If you're not running the best model as fast as you can, then you'll be outpaced by someone that does.

1. https://trust.mistral.ai/subprocessors

If there are low switching costs, and if there are multiple highly capable models, and if the hardware is openly purchasable (all of these are true), then the price will converge to a reasonable cash flow return on GPUs deployed net of operating expenses of running these data centers.

If they start showing much higher returns on assets, then one of the many infra providers just builds a data center, fills it with GPUs, and rents it out at 5% lower price. This is the market mechanism.

Looking at who owns the compute is barking up the wrong tree, because it has little moat. Maybe GPU manufacturers would be a better place to look, but then the argument is that you're beholden to NVIDIA's pricing to the hyperscalers. There's some truth to that, but you already see that market position eroding because of TPUs and belatedly AMD. All of these giant companies are looking to degrade Jensen's moat, and they're starting to succeed.

Is the argument here that somehow all the hyperscalers are going to merge to one and there will be only one supplier of compute? How do you defend the idea that nobody else could get compute?

A tri-opoly can still provide competitive pressure. The Chinese models aren’t terrible either. Kimi K2.5 is pretty capable, although noticeably behind Claude Opus. But its existence still helps. The existence of a better product doesn’t require you to purchase it at any price.
> The existence of a better product doesn’t require you to purchase it at any price

It does if it means someone using a better model can outpace you. Not spending as much as you can means you don't have a business anymore.

It's all meaningless, ultimately. You're not building anything for anyone if no one has a job.

Your competitor developing software a little faster doesn't guarantee their success over you. It just skews the odds slightly in their favor.
because in all of this change we can’t be bothered to imagine a world where people have money without jobs? Do you think billionaires are just going to want to stop making more money?

The best bull case for us reaching luxury gay space communism is that people not working and having near infinite capital to buy whatever they want to enjoy is the only way the billionaires get to see their pot growing forever.

>because in all of this change we can’t be bothered to imagine a world where people have money without jobs?

We can imagine it all we want, and a free pony too. What we'll get is most of humanity not needed, and living in the edges of society, plus some 10-20 percent still "useful".

>The best bull case for us reaching luxury gay space communism is that people not working and having near infinite capital to buy whatever they want to enjoy is the only way the billionaires get to see their pot growing forever.

Billionaires are about power. The money was just a means for that, if they can get it in another way, they will use that. People "not working and having near infinite capital to buy whatever they want to enjoy" is the last thing they'll want.

Have they stopped making a loss yet? They'll all need to raise prices or they'll all go out of business, and now it's a game of chicken.
Competition doesn’t magically waive costs, the investors expectations of return, neither debt serving obligations.
And how has that worked out for us in any other software category?
I mean it's kind of hard to say because almost all software I use is free, a lot of it is FOSS. The software I bought outright in the last couple of years was well priced because of competition (ex: Affinity Designer 2 for $63 - the new version is free although I stick with v2).
that worked real well for cloud computing

aws and gcp's margins are legendarily poor

oh, wait

gcp was net negative until last year.

Big part of why clouds are expensive is not necessary hardware, but all software infra and complexity of all services.

Maybe not worth using then. Your product costs 5x and delivers 0.2x of competing product in the adjacent product class (traditional server/VPS), why use it?
those who don't need cloud services are feel free to use other options.
Which cloud services do you need?
DB with cross zone replications and HA for starter.
All the big clouds are still in market share acquisition mode. Give it about 5 more years, when they're all in market consolidation and extraction mode.
cloud providers indeed could abuse vendor lock, but LLMs are not that easily vendor lockable.
Search engines were also not "easily vendor lockable".