←back to thread

S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

(timkellogg.me)
851 points tkellogg | 1 comments | 05 Feb 25 11:05 UTC | HN request time: 0.258s | source
Show context
swiftcoder ◴[05 Feb 25 13:25 UTC] 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 #
gessha ◴[05 Feb 25 14:13 UTC] No.42948712[source]▶
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.
replies(3): >>42948854 #>>42949513 #>>42951813 #
syntaxing ◴[05 Feb 25 14:24 UTC] No.42948854[source]▶
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.
replies(5): >>42949098 #>>42949373 #>>42952809 #>>42952963 #>>42953590 #
1. dghlsakjg ◴[05 Feb 25 19:13 UTC] No.42953590[source]▶
That's a great way to value a company that is going bankrupt.

But, I'm not going to value an operating construction company based on how many shovels or excavators they own. I'm going to want to see them putting those assets to productive use.