Only reason deepseek is so cheap is because well I don't know, but actual pricing should be around their initial price which was 4x, at that price you have a healthy 25-50% margin based on occupancy, given the deepseek v4 is a very sparse moe model.

GLM 5.2 for example doesn't have more than 30-50% margins that's assuming old pricing for GPUs, current inflated GPU pricing well I am certain the margins must be lower. Ofc you can host for cheaper with quantization, and if you have very consistent capacity/utilization, which is not the norm with AI workloads.

Overall for large models like GPT 5.5 or Opus there must be healthier margins of around 50-70% assuming GPU pricing didn't increase for these companies. Even if it did 30-40% margin should be possible, even in worst case assuming all GPU they had saw a jump in pricing.

For smaller models it's hard to say, I would guess 20% but these models might be much smaller than I suspect, then it might be double that.

Note the issue is less intelligent tokens don't linearly scale down in memory usage, which is the biggest pain point of serving models. Context sizes have fucked us all.

Also anyone claiming OAI makes less margins on APIs or stuff might be wrong given they are on much lower context size, 1M context definitely is a lot more expensive to serve especially with smaller models like sonnet.

I have a lot of experience with similar systems, that's what we call rigging the election.

Imagine a handful of anonymous UMA wallets dominate Polymarket’s contested resolutions, and reporters have linked some deciding wallets to positions in the very markets they judged.

:But you don't have to it happens way too often and there is no oversight against it: https://www.wsj.com/finance/polymarket-bet-disputes-fb1b8c6a https://www.barrons.com/articles/polymarket-prediction-marke...

I hope we can all agree to read this stuff.

> Polymarket can market-make, but so can you (i.e be on the both sides of the order book). You can't do that in a casino for instance.

That's like saying Elon can be a trillionaire, but so can you, I mean sure, anyone can, but how lucky do you think you have to be for your market to actually get any meaningful traction and for you to make any money. And even when you do, you are basically suggesting you should insider trade or rig bets to make money... I am certain that might be a flex for some but man I don't think that's the dunk you were looking for.

At the end the only folks making money are the markets, but who am I to stop the blind. Best of luck, hopefully you don't regret it. I only hope people don't get addicted or robbed by this stuff, rich people can have their own fun I don't really care.

There are other things as well, like they control which side wins, so they can leverage trade or even swing trade internally with a few bot accounts, not saying that they do but I don't see a ToC that says they can't.

I would have hoped for ~600$ with the economic realities maybe 800$, but 1000$+ just feels like too much doesn't valve have like a multi-billion dollar muscle couldn't the folks make it a tad cheaper...

I guess we can only blame the current market conditions at the end of the day.

I am personally just tired of it, and it's brilliant to see someone thriving outside of the zone to working for work's sake. Even if the realities are different.

Hope we had more people like you whom we all could disagree with but mutually respect.

Cheers to a better future. (hope it wasn't too much waxing poetic but I feel like we are just too damn trapped in this tech bubble to value good moments these days)

not the question is which X tokens and which Y tokens? and since the output is non-deterministic how do you validate this?

LLMs aren't random and that enforces something that people are too dumb to realize that random-ness could be normally distributed but LLMs have no reason to be normally distributed or follow any sort of curve of understanding.

They are non-deterministic but with bias so their output might be just be worse with T' transformation for the class of problems A is solving but work great for B. or vice versa.

You can't reproducibly test LLMs and that allows all sorts of benchmarks to exist which can make any model look good or bad as much as we want. Enlightening stuff.

Not much different from sociological or psychological sciences where with enough bias in data you can prove anything.

Or maybe try jj. Either is better than you using Git's raw cli as someone who doesn't really know or care how it works.

Git cli is very much made with rough edges and is generally expected to be in hands of an advanced user, these days lots of commands have been made simpler and stuff, but git cli is just still very raw.

Happy voting with your wallet folks. See ya.

I think the issue is the reality that most life is worth a lot less (in US Freedom units) than some software running doing absolutely nothing truly valuable for anyone.

I even moved to using Deepseek for helping with it for a bit.

And for properly working drivers for some old locked down hardware.

Could I have phrased it better and not hit model guardrails sure. But this seemed genuinely obvious, since my intent wasn't well bad.

I built a homelab before the crisis started which might allow me to survive this for the next few years.

But man am I sad about folks trying to build new projects.

Further the human costs in the loop for AI training are insanely low or atleast substantially lower outside of US, so sure without the Nvidia upcharge I think everyone else who can use Compute from China is at an advantage.

If the assumption is AI is scaling issue then China will win because they can do infrastructure. Maybe if US wasn't in a trade war with rest of the planet there was some hope but I don't think so.

Once Deepseek figures out the new compute and can get it on par with Nvidia's clusters even if by using 4x the energy(cause they can). I don't think OpenAI or Anthropic can maintain a lead, if they don't have a lead the pricing difference will kill the AI race.

The best case scenario is OpenAI and Anthropic are dead in 2-5 years once China is caught up.

The worst case scenario where AI is not a productive boost is that well the thing pops.

Either way I don't see how this works out. Sure US govt could bomb China that's always an option.