| This meme needs to go in the bin. Loss making companies love inventing strange new accounting metrics, which is one reason public companies are forced to report in standardized ways. There's no such thing as "profitable inference". A company is either profitable or it isn't. Let's for a second assume all the labs somehow manage to form a secret OPEC-style cartel that agrees to slow training to a halt, and nobody notices or investigates. This is already hard to imagine with the amount of scrutiny they're under and given that China views this as a military priority. But let's pretend they manage it. These firms also have lots of other costs: • Staffing and comp! That's huge! • User subsidies to allow flat rate plans • Support (including abuse control and handling the escalations from their support bots) • Marketing • Legal fees and data licensing • Corporate/enterprise sales, which is expensive as hell even though it's often worth it • Debt servicing (!!) • Generating returns for investors Inferencing margins have to cover all of those, even if progress stops tomorrow and the RoI to investors has to be likewise very large, so margins can't be trivial. Yet what these firms have said about their margins is very ambiguous. As they're arriving at this statement by excluding major cost components like training, it's not clear what they think the cost of inferencing actually is. Are they excluding other things too like hw depreciation and upgrades? Are they excluding the cost of the corporate sales/support infrastructure around the inferencing? |
But also, "profitable inference" IS a thing! "Gross margin" is important and meaningful, even if a company has other obligations that mean it's overall not profitable.