←back to thread

S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

(timkellogg.me)
851 points tkellogg | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.215s | 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 #
gessha ◴[] 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 #
tyfon ◴[] No.42951813[source]
I don't think you need to speculate too hard. On CNBC they are not tracking revenue, profits or technical breakthroughs, but how much the big companies are spending (on gpus). That's the metric!
replies(5): >>42951860 #>>42952948 #>>42953193 #>>42954800 #>>42955651 #
1. ur-whale ◴[] No.42955651[source]
> but how much the big companies are spending (on gpus). That's the metric!

Burn rate based valuations!

The 2000's are back in full force!