S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

> 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...

This is pure speculation on my part but I think at some point a company's valuation became tied to how big their compute is so everybody jumped on the bandwagon.

Matt Levine tangentially talked about this during his podcast this past Friday (or was it the one before?). It was a good way to value these companies according to their compute size since those chips are very valuable. At a minimum, the chips are an asset that acts as a collateral.

I hear this a lot, but what the hell. It's still computer chips. They depreciate. Short supply won't last forever. Hell, GPUs burn out. It seems like using ice sculptures as collateral, and then spring comes.

Year over year gains in computing continue to slow. I think we keep forgetting that when talking about these things as assets. The thing controlling their value is the supply which is tightly controlled like diamonds.