←back to thread

S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

(timkellogg.me)
851 points tkellogg | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.312s | source
Show context
swiftcoder ◴[] No.42948127[source]
> having 10,000 H100s just means that you can do 625 times more experiments than s1 did

I think the ball is very much in their court to demonstrate they actually are using their massive compute in such a productive fashion. My BigTech experience would tend to suggest that frugality went out the window the day the valuation took off, and they are in fact just burning compute for little gain, because why not...

replies(5): >>42948369 #>>42948616 #>>42948712 #>>42949773 #>>42953287 #
whizzter ◴[] No.42948369[source]
Mainly it points to a non-scientific "bigger is better" mentality, and the researchers probably didn't mind playing around with the power because "scale" is "cool".

Remember that the Lisp AI-labs people were working on non-solved problems on absolute potatoes of computers back in the day, we have a semblance of progress solution but so much of it has been brute-force (even if there has been improvements in the field).

The big question is if these insane spendings has pulled the rug on real progress if we head into another AI winter of disillusionment or if there is enough real progress just around the corner to show that there is hope for investors in a post-deepseek valuation hangover.

replies(2): >>42948531 #>>42950004 #
1. ◴[] No.42950004[source]